knowledge dissemination in public administration

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

School of Public Affairs

KNOWLEDGE DISSEMINATION IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION:

MEASURING ACADEMIC SCHOLARSHIP

WITH SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSES OF SCHOLARLY JOURNAL

CITATIONS IN PUBLIC ADMINSTRATION AND RELATED FIELDS

A Dissertation in

Public Administration

by

Glenn S. McGuigan

2018 Glenn S. McGuigan

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

December 2018

ii

The dissertation of Glenn S. McGuigan was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Göktuğ Morçöl

Professor of Public Policy and Administration

Dissertation Adviser

Chair of Committee

Graduate Program Chair

Steven Peterson

Professor of Politics and Public Affairs Emeritus

Bing Ran

Associate Professor of Public Administration

Rhoda Joseph

Associate Professor of Information Systems

Travis Grosser

Assistant Professor of Management

University of Connecticut School of Business, University of Connecticut

Special Member

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

iii

ABSTRACT

In this research, I investigate the intellectual environment of public administration

with analyses of scholarly journal publishing citation metrics. The two purposes of this

dissertation are to investigate whether public administration is an isolated and insular

field, particularly in relation to political science and business management, and to elicit

the citation network structure of public administration journals. To investigate whether

public administration is an isolated field and to elicit the citation networks of the journals,

I used social network analysis on the journal citations in the Web of Science in three

years: 2005, 2010, and 2015.

In an earlier study on journal citations in public administration, Wright (2011)

found that research in public administration is largely isolated from the three disciplines

that were believed to be its foundations: law, management, and political science. In this

study, I sought to verify this finding and examine the explanations for the levels of

isolation and insularity of public administration I particularly examined the categorical

relations between the citations and the characteristics of the ego networks of the public

administration journals. Using ego network analyses with the software UCINET, I

examined the relative isolation and insularity of the top scholarly journals of public

administration, in comparison to the top journals of two related fields: political science

and business management. I calculated the citing and cited references based on a

categorical classification of citations. I measured the changes in the ego networks of

citations over time using the Index of Qualitative Variation. The results of my study

iv

confirm Wright’s finding that public administration is isolated, but my results provide

more detail and nuance to this conclusion.

I also examined the network structure of public administration journals to

determine the relative prestige of the journals, using whole-network analyses. In my

examination I tested whether the citation networks have the characteristics of the small

world model and/or a scale-free network. In my analyses, I used multiple measures for the

whole networks, including degree centrality, Bonacich centrality, core periphery, clique

analyses, and the Small World Index. The results of the centrality and core-periphery

analyses yield a picture of a centralized network among public administration journals.

The clique analyses show that there are groups among public administration journals and

that these groups became more discernable over time. The results of the clustering

coefficient analyses and the Small World Index analyses suggest that there is a small-

world structure among the citations in public administration journals. Two journals,

Public Administration Review and the Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory, are at the core of the citation networks in public administration. Although my

analyses do not directly confirm the existence of a scale-free network, or a Power Law

distribution, among the citations in public administration, I speculate based on my whole

network analyses that there is “preferential attachment” to the central journals of the

public administration networks in the years I analyzed.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. ix LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................. xii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................... 1 Significance of the Study ...................................................................................... 5 Research Questions ............................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW TO CONSIDER EXPLANATIONS FOR THE

INSULARITY AND ISOLATION OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND

ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE CITATION NETWORKS 8

Overall Rationale for the Applications of Social Network Analysis Methods ..... 8 Is Public Administration Isolated and/or Insular? ................................................ 10 Unique Nature of Public Administration .............................................................. 11

Isolation from business (private) administration ........................................... 12 Isolation from political science ..................................................................... 16

Intellectual/Identity Crisis .................................................................................... 21 Lack of core theory ........................................................................................ 22 Lack of methodological rigor ........................................................................ 23 Focus on values over empirical evidence ...................................................... 24 Lack of a common identity ............................................................................ 26 The separation of public policy ..................................................................... 27

Structure of the Whole Citation Networks: Social Network Analysis

Concepts ........................................................................................................ 29 Small world networks .................................................................................... 32 Scale-free networks ....................................................................................... 34

Summary ............................................................................................................... 35

CHAPTER 3 METHODS 37

Social Network Analyses of Scholarly Communication ...................................... 37 Analytical Approaches .......................................................................................... 41 Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 42

Citation data for ego and whole network analyses. ....................................... 42 Selection of journals for ego network analyses ............................................. 42

vi

Top journals in public administration and other top journals ........................ 43 Selection of journals for whole network analyses ......................................... 48 Abbreviations of journals for calculations, tables, and figures ..................... 50

Ego Network Analyses ......................................................................................... 51 Categorical attributes of journals ................................................................... 52 Public administration calculations of ties: JPART, PAR, and ARPA ........... 55 Political science calculations of ties: AJPS, APSR, and PANL .................... 57 Business management calculations of ties: AMJ, AMR, and ASQ .............. 59 Measures of heterogeneity and the prestige gap ............................................ 61 Categorical analyses calculations of ties for the top journals ........................ 63

Whole Network Analyses ..................................................................................... 64 Calculations of degree centrality (average, normalized degree, and

Bonacich centrality) ............................................................................... 66 Calculation of density .................................................................................... 69 Core-periphery and sub-group analyses ........................................................ 69 Clique analyses and hierarchical clustering .................................................. 70 Small World Index and calculations of clustering coefficient ...................... 71 Scale-free network concept ........................................................................... 72

Assumptions and Limitations ............................................................................... 74 Web of Science as the study universe ............................................................ 74 Journal Impact Factor .................................................................................... 75 Exclusion of law journals .............................................................................. 79 Threshold of citations .................................................................................... 79 Self-Citations ................................................................................................. 80

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 81

Ego Networks: IQV and Prestige Gap .................................................................. 81 Change over time for in-degree measures of dispersion (IQV) .................... 84 Change over time for out-degree measures of dispersion ............................. 87 Heterogeneity scores and the prestige gap .................................................... 91

Ego Networks: Categorical Analyses Calculations of Ties for the Top

Journals .......................................................................................................... 95 Public administration journals in-citations and out-citations ........................ 96 Political science journals in-citations and out-citations ................................ 100 Business management journals in-citations and out-citations ....................... 104 Observations on the citations between public administration, political

science, and business management ........................................................ 108 Ratios of ties .................................................................................................. 110

Summary of Ego-Network Analyses .................................................................... 112 Whole Network and Sub-Group Analyses ........................................................... 116

Measures of centrality and changes over time .............................................. 118 Network centralization and density ............................................................... 122 Core-periphery analyses ................................................................................ 126

vii

Subgroups in the whole network of public administration journal

citations .................................................................................................. 129 The small world concept, the clustering coefficient, and the Small World

Index ....................................................................................................... 136 Scale-free networks ....................................................................................... 139

Summary of Whole Network Analyses ................................................................ 140

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS 147

Summary of Findings ........................................................................................... 149 Ego network analyses .................................................................................... 149 Whole network analyses ................................................................................ 151 Insularity and isolation of public administration through ego network

analyses .................................................................................................. 152 Eliciting the structure of the public administration citation network

through whole network analyses ............................................................ 154 Concluding Thoughts............................................................................................ 156

REFERENCE LIST 159

APPENDICES 169

Appendix A: Coding Based on Web of Science Subject Taxonomy .................... 169 Appendix B: Taxonomy Criteria Based upon Web of Science Classification

(Numbers in parentheses relate to UCINET coding) .................................... 170 Appendix C: Public Administration Listing of Journal Titles in the Web of

Science: 2005, 2010, 2015 ............................................................................. 176 Appendix D: Master List of Categorized Journals and Sources Indexed in

the Web of Science ......................................................................................... 181 Appendix E: Journal Tables Measuring Citations for Public Administration,

Political Science, and Business Management for 2005 and 2010 ................. 229 Appendix F: Routine for Creating Ego Networks of Journals using Journal

Citation Reports, Excel, and UCINET .......................................................... 241 Appendix G: Routine for Creating Whole Networks of Journals using

Journal Citation Reports, Excel, and UCINET ............................................. 243 Appendix H: Routine for Updating Master File while Creating a new

Network and Attribute File with Excel and UCINET .................................... 244 Appendix I: Routine for Running Analysis in UCINET for Ego Network

Analysis of Categorical Attributes ................................................................. 246 Appendix J: Routine for Copying, Pasting, and Formatting from Logs in

UCINET into Excel ........................................................................................ 247 Appendix K: Network Measures for Public Administration Journals ................. 248 Appendix L: Core-ness Measures of Journals in Public Administration

Networks ........................................................................................................ 253

viii

Appendix M: Whole Network Matrix UCINET Displays of Public

Administration Citations ............................................................................... 255

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1. Histogram of In-Citations of Public Administration Journals 2005 ......... 122



Figure 4.4. Hierarchical Clustering Dendogram of Overlap Matrix 2005 ................. 131



x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Top Journals in Public Administration, Political Science, and Business

Management by JIF in 2015 ................................................................................. 44

Table 3.2 Journal Impact Factor (JIF) for Journals in Public Administration,

Political Science, and Management 2005-2015, sorted by discipline .................. 47

Table 3.3 Coding for Subject Categories ..................................................................... 54

Table 3.4 Calculation for Journal Impact Factor ....................................................... 76

Table 4.1 Measures of Dispersion (IQV) for Cited Journals (In-Degree): 2005,

2010, and 2015 ................................................................................................... 86

Table 4.2 Measures of Dispersion (IQV) for Citing Journals (Out-Degree): 2015,

2010, 2005 ............................................................................................................ 89

Table 4.3 Differences between All-Subject In-Citation and Out-Citation

Heterogeneity Scores in 2005, 2010, and 2015 .................................................... 91

Table 4.4 Differences between Dichotomized In-Citation and Out-Citation

Heterogeneity Scores in 2005, 2010, and 2015 .................................................... 93

Table 4.5 Public Administration Journals—In-citations 2015 .................................... 97

Table 4.6 Public Administration Journals—Out-citations 2015 ................................ 99

Table 4.7 Political Science Journals—In-Citations 2015............................................ 101

Table 4.8 Political Science Journals – Out-Citations 2015 ........................................ 103

Table 4.9 Business Management Journals – In-Citations 2015 .................................. 105

Table 4.10 Business Management Journals – Out-Citations Ties 2015 ...................... 107

Table 4.11 Ratios of Ties: 2005, 2010, and 2015 ....................................................... 111

Table 4.12 Degree Centrality Measures and JIF Scores for Out-Citations and In-

Citations for Top Ten Public Administration Journals in 2005, 2010, and

2015 ...................................................................................................................... 120

Table 4.13 Cohesion Measures for Public Administration Network ........................... 125

Table 4.14 Core-Periphery Measures of Public Administration Networks ................. 128

xi

Table 4.15 Coreness Measures of Public Administration Networks ........................... 128

Table 4.16 Clusters of Journals in Public Administration Network 2015 ................... 135

Table 4.17 Weighed Overall Clustering Coefficients and Small World Indexes for

Public Administration Networks, 2005, 2010, and 2015 ...................................... 138

xii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge and thank my dissertation adviser, Dr. Göktuğ

Morçöl, who rigorously challenged me through this intense journey of researching and

writing this dissertation. Dr. Morçöl has been a teacher, a mentor, a supporter, and a

collaborator. I can never thank him enough for his commitment and dedication to me as

a doctoral student. It has been an honor to work with him.

I am grateful to the Penn State University Libraries, under the leadership of Dean

Barbara Dewey, for supporting my professional development as I have pursued this work

over the years. Particularly, I would like to thank Christine Avery, Senior Director of the

Commonwealth Campus Libraries, for her continuous support as an administrator and a

mentor.

I would like to thank the members of the search committee from Penn State

Harrisburg, Dr. Bing Ran, Dr. Steven Peterson, and Dr. Rhoda Joseph. To each one of

them, I am grateful for their time, support, and valuable feedback in improving my

research.

I am very grateful to the special member of my dissertation committee, Dr. Travis

Grosser. Dr. Grosser has been very generous with his time in guiding me over the years

regarding the concepts and operations of Social Network Analysis and UCINET. I will

always be indebted to him for his generosity and his insight.

I would like thank and acknowledge Dr. Stephen Borgatti, Gatton College of

Business and Economics at the University of Kentucky. I could not have researched and

written this dissertation without the brilliant research, writing, and teaching of Dr.

xiii

Borgatti. Attending the LINKS workshops, organized by Dr. Borgatti, at the University

of Kentucky, to learn about Social Network Analysis and UCINET, was a truly life-

changing experience. During those week-long sessions, I also had the great opportunity

of meeting with various professors and graduate students, including Dr. Scott Soltis,

Gatton College of Business and Economics at the University of Kentucky, who provided

invaluable guidance to me as I was formulating this research.

I would like to acknowledge Dr. Bradley Wright, School of Public and

International Affairs, University of Georgia, for conducting research of journal citations

in public administration that served as the primary inspiration for this research.

I would like to thank my family. I am grateful to my mother, Maria Henry, who

taught me to love reading. I would like to acknowledge my late, step-father, Milton

Henry, who, along with my mother, always encouraged me to keep pursuing my

academic goals. Most of all, I am grateful to my amazing wife and best friend, Donna,

and my wonderful daughter Ella, for their support. I thank them for their love,

encouragement, good humor, and patience, as I have focused on this research for many

years. They have been my biggest supporters.

xiv

DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to my daughter Ella. I love you more than anything in the

world.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

In this study, my goal is to investigate the intellectual structure of the field of

public administration by examining academic journal citations. More specific goals are

to investigate whether public administration is an isolated and insular field and to elicit

the network structure of public administration journal citations. To accomplish these

goals, I used various social network analysis (SNA) methods in my examination of the

articles of the scholarly journals in public administration. More specifically I used two

methods: ego (or personal) network analyses; and whole network analyses, which

correspond to the two fundamental types of research designs in SNA (Borgatti, Everett,

& Johnson, 2013, p. 28). I used ego-network analyses to answer the question of whether

public administration is an isolated field. Specifically, I analyzed the citations of the

articles published in public administration journals and those in two related fields. In the

whole network analyses, I used various methods to investigate the intellectual structure of

public administration journals. Specifically, I used measures relating to sub-group

analyses and to centrality.

Statement of the Problem

Public administration is a field that emerged and matured relatively later than

some other related fields of study, such as political science and business

2

administration/management. This late development of public administration made public

administration scholars concerned about the status of their field in comparison to others

fields (i.e., to what extent it has prestige in academia and to what extent it is isolated);

and the internal structure of the field. These concerns are reflected in the literature on the

trends in the scholarly publications in the field (Ni, Sugimoto, & Robin, 2017;

Raadschelders, 2011; Raadschelders & Lee, 2011; Riccucci, 2010; Wright, 2011), which

I will discuss in detail in the next chapter.

Based on the literature, I aimed to answer two questions in this dissertation. First,

is public administration an isolated and insular field, particularly compared to political

science and management? Second, what is the intellectual structure of the field of public

administration, as represented in the citation networks of its journals?

Is public administration an isolated field? Wright (2011, p. 96) observes that

while earlier scholars, such as Waldo (1984, pp. 24-48) considered the fields of law,

management, and political science as the foundations of public administration, his

analyses of journal citations show that the “research in public administration is largely

isolated” from them. The scholars in these fields tend not to cite the works in public

administration in their own studies. More specifically, he showed that during a four-

year-period from 2004-2007, journal articles in public administration were cited on

average once or twice for every 100 articles published in the top fifteen journals of law,

management, and political science (p. 98). He notes that this isolation “detracts from the

perceived importance and credibility of field” and “that if the field of public

administration hopes to develop a more coherent body of public administration theory,

maximize its usefulness to government practitioners and gain credibility as a field of

3

social science, then it must work to end its isolation from the politics, law, and

management literature” (p. 100). In this dissertation, I tested Wright’s assertions with

ego-network analyses.

I complement Wright’s concept of “isolation” with “insularity.” I define isolation

as public administration journals not being cited by the journals of other fields, or being

cited in lesser frequencies by them, compared to public administration journals citing

them. I define insularity as public administration journals not citing the journals of other

fields, or citing them in lesser frequencies, compared to the journals in other fields citing

them. I recognize that both isolation and insularity are not categorical definitions; instead

they should be defined in gradations. So, in my investigation I analyzed citations to

determine the degrees of isolation and insularity of the field.

What is the intellectual structure of the field of public administration, as

represented in the citation networks of its journals? Other scholars investigated the

intellectual structure of public administration by reviewing the themes and topics that

became prominent in different time periods in public administration (Bingham & Bowen

1994; Bowman and Hajjar 1978a, 1978b; Ni at al., 2017; Raadschelders & Lee, 2011;

West, 2010). In my study, I took a different approach and investigated the flow of

citations, in and out of journals in the field, with social network analyses, particularly

centrality measures and subgroup analyses. I investigated these citation networks in

different time periods to find out how these centralities and subgroupings changed over

time. There is a need for future research to examine how different notions of prestige

could be measured, such as examining the prestige of journals within a field (centralities

4

in the citation networks) with the prestige in the broader world of academic publications

(journal impact factors).

In the whole-network analyses, I found that within the public administration

journals, there are two main “stars” (central journals) who stand out from all the other

journals: Public Administration Review and the Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory. These two journals received and sent the most numbers of

citations in the field. Based on their centrality scores, these are the most prestigious

journals and could be viewed as the central hubs in the social network of journal

citations. Their central positions in the networks may be results of what is known as

“preferential attachment,” or the “Matthew Effect”: New nodes create links to existing

nodes as a proportion to the degree of the existing nodes (Borgatti, et. al, 2013, p. 260).

Consequently, nodes of high degree (those that are central already) will receive more

links due to their existing positions in the network.

The results of the subgroup analyses indicate that public policy journals formed

their subgroups within the network of public administration journals over time. I discuss

these results in Chapter 4.

Further discussion of these conceptualizations are presented in the methods,

results, and conclusions sections.

5

Significance of the Study

Why should we examine the citation patterns of scholarly journals? I argue that

examining the citations between the journals of public administration and those of others,

and the citation networks within the field of public administration, will lead to a better

understanding of the intellectual traditions and patterns in the field. There is some

literature on these topics, but the social network analysis methods I applied to examine

journal level metrics can yield a more specific understanding of the standing of the field

in academia and its internal structure. To my knowledge, there has not been a study that

used social network analysis to analyze journal level metrics (citations) in public

administration before.

Research Questions

There are two foci of this study: examining the relationship between public

administration and related fields and examining the relationship among public

administration journals. Research questions are as follows.

1. Is public administration an isolated and/or insular field in terms of journal

citations? More specifically:

a. To what extent are public administration journals isolated from other

fields? To answer this question, I compare the ego-networks of the

citations (in-citations) of the articles published in the top three journals of

6

public administration, with those of political science and management.

These calculations include heterogeneity measures and ratios.

b. To what extent are public administration journals insular in terms of the

citations by public administration journals of the journals in other fields?

To answer this question, I compare the ego-networks (out-citations) of the

citations of the articles published in other academic fields to the articles

published in the top three journals of public administration. These

calculations include heterogeneity measures and ratios.

c. Was there a change in the degree of isolation of public administration

journals over time?

d. Was there a change in the degree of insularity of public administration

journals over time?

2. What is the intellectual structure of the field of public administration, as

represented in the citation networks of its journals? My more specific questions

are as follows.

a. Which journals are more central and which ones are peripheral in the

public administration journal citation network? How did they change over

time? To answer these questions, I apply a series of centrality measures:

degree centrality, including normalized degree, and Bonacich degree.

b. How centralized is the overall structure of the citation network of public

administration journals? How did it change over time? To answer these

questions, I calculated measures of density, including average degree

7

centralization, network density, normalized average degree, and

normalized density.

c. What is the core periphery structure and how did it change over time? To

answer these questions, I conducted core periphery analyses.

d. Are there subgroups (cliques or factions) in the whole network of public

administration journal citations? Did they change over time? In order to

answer these questions, I conducted hierarchical clustering analyses.

e. How do the networks fit into the small world concept? To answer this

question, I apply a series of whole network analysis measures: clustering

coefficient and Small World Index.

f. How do the networks fit into the scale free network concept? To answer

these questions, I discuss how the measures used in the following research

questions may provide evidence of this concept.

8

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW TO CONSIDER EXPLANATIONS FOR THE

INSULARITY AND ISOLATION OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND

ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE CITATION NETWORKS

Overall Rationale for the Applications of Social Network Analysis Methods

Citation networks can be seen as a flow of links between the nodes of a network.

These flows can be analyzed in two ways: “out-degree” flows (the citations going out of

a journal to other journals) and an “in-degree” flows (citations of a journal by other

journals) (de Solla Price, 1965, p. 510). The public administration journal citation

network is a relational network in which the journals are the nodes, or the actors, and the

citations are the flows in and out of the journals. These citations are the “edges,” “ties,”

or “links,” in the terminology of social network analysis. The public administration

journals cite journals within the field itself and outside of the field. Journals from outside

of the field of public administration cite journals within their own fields and outside the

fields, such as public administration. The citations by the journals in other fields

(particularly political science and business management) of public administration

journals were of particular interest in my study.

In this chapter, I present the literature reviews for both of my research questions.

First, I address the research question (1) of “is public administration an isolated

and/or insular field in terms of journal citations?” In other words, is the literature of

public administration isolated or insular from those of other academic fields of study?

Wright (2011) demonstrates in his research that public administration is an isolated field.

He reaches this conclusion based on his analyses of the articles published in public

administration journals in the period from 1977 to 2007. He found that articles published

9

in public administration journals are cited rarely in political science and management

journals. More specifically, he found that only 0.01 percent of the citations in political

science journals in this period (only 73 out of the total 2935 citations) were citations of

the articles published in public administration journals. Similarly, only 0.02 percent of

the citations in management journals in this period (only 55 out of the total 3,840

citations) were citations of the articles published in public administration journals.

Although Wright does not ask this question directly, it is reasonable also to ask, is

public administration also an insular field: Do public administration journal articles cite

primarily articles in public administration journals, but not the ones in other fields? It is

logical to expect that researchers in a particular field cite sources in their field primarily,

but it can also be expected that they cite sources in other fields to some degree.

It should be noted that neither isolation nor insularity can be defined in absolute

terms. No academic field can be completely isolated from others; journal articles in each

field cite those in other fields at varying degrees. Also, journal articles in each academic

field tend to cite others in their own fields more so than the ones in other field. Therefore,

the question of isolation and insularity should be defined in relative terms. To what extent

is each field isolated, compared to others? To what extent is each field insular, compared

to others? Isolation and insularity are inversely related in general, but different

measurements can be used to assess the degrees of isolation and insularity in each field in

relative terms. I discuss the specific ego-network analysis methods I used to measure

insularity and isolation in the methods section.

Next, I address the second research question (2) of “what is the intellectual

structure of the field of public administration, as represented in the citation networks of

10

its journals?” To address the second set of research questions in my dissertation, I use

the concepts of social network analysis as applied to the whole networks. I seek to

understand why there are high-degree nodes and clustered structures within the citations

networks. I specifically investigate whether the whole networks are small world networks

and/or scale-free networks. I particularly intend to investigate whether both of these

structures exist simultaneously.

In both groups of analyses (ego-network analyses and whole network analyses),

the common concept is “prestige.” As I discuss below, the centrality scores of the nodes

are measures of prestige. The definition of prestige that I use here is “the extent to which

a social actor in a network receives or serves as the object of relations sent by others in

the network” (Knoke & Yang, 2008, p. 69).

Is Public Administration Isolated and/or Insular?

If public administration is an isolated and/or insular field, then why is it so?

What can account for the structure of journals in the public administration network? In

this section, I propose two broad explanations for possible isolation and insularity of

public administration: the unique nature of the field and the intellectual/identity crisis of

the field.

11

Unique Nature of Public Administration

The isolation and insularity of the field of public administration may arise from its

unique role in society and its close alignment with public bureaucracies. Public

administration as a field of study is difficult to define. There are multiple definitions or

characterizations of the field, all of which emphasize the “public” nature of the academic

discipline of public administration and the profession. What is “public” is quite difficult

to define also. A detailed analysis of the ambiguity of the “publicness” as it is applied in

the conceptual discussions and analyses in the field is explored by Pesch (2005). A

comprehensive discussion of these definitions and the problems of publicness are beyond

the scope of this dissertation. Instead, I accept the definition by Birkland (2011) that

public administration is “the study of the management of government and nonprofit

organizations, including the management of information, money, and personnel in order

to achieve goals developed through the democratic process” (p. 15). Therefore, public

administration is a field of study and practice that attempts to solve “public problems”

and to pursue the “public interest” by governmental actions.

This definition and role of public administration creates the potential for its

isolation from both the fields of business administration and political science. It creates

the potential for an isolation from business administration in the sense that governmental

actions are contrasted with actions to solve “private problems” and to pursue “private

interests,” which are in the domain of the latter. It also creates the potential for an

isolation from political science because from its beginnings as a field in the United

States, at least some prominent scholars aimed to separate the activities of public

administration from political activities. The differences of public administration on the

12

one hand and political science and business administration/management on the other are

further explored in the following subsections.

Isolation from business (private) administration

Public administration is an applied field in which professionals who work for the

government serve the public. There is a long history of the separation of the public from

the private in human societies. A recounting or a discussion of this history is beyond the

scope of this dissertation. Instead, I summarize the conceptualizations of the role of

public administration in recent literature.

What distinguishes public administration from business (private) management is

the former’s obligation to promote the public good, and “to serve a higher purpose”

(Rosenbloom & Kravchuk, 2005, p. 7) with “a high degree of accountability” (Corson,

1952, p. 125). Unlike other fields, the field of public administration is characterized by

the activity of addressing, in both theory and practice, the complex problems of society

from a perspective of governance within the constitutional framework of the separation of

powers in the United States (Cox, Buck, & Morgan, 2011, p. 2). These complex

problems that are often addressed by public administrators can be characterized as

problems without definitive causes and without clear and definitive solutions (Gollagher

& Hartz-Karp, 2013, p. 2344). In many cases, scholars and practitioners of the field of

public administration are forced to acknowledge that they cannot truly solve these

intractable problems; instead, they must make decisions that best serve the “public

interest” although they may not solve the problems.

13

The alignment of public administration with the work of governmental entities in

attempting to solve these complex problems has possibly contributed to its isolation. This

association is crystallized in the association of governmental action with the term

“bureaucracy” in professional and non-academic discourses.

The “public” orientation of public administration may be viewed as tacitly

supporting or justifying bureaucracy or the works of practitioners, or bureaucrats. This

association may have negative connotations because of the citizen disillusionment with

the works of governments, at least in the United States. Researchers show that the

disillusionment with traditional public administration in the U.S. has reached all-time

highs (Durant & Ali, 2013, p. 278). In the U.S., public administration has faced public

resentment against bureaucratic power for a long time (Blau & Meyer, 1971, p. 149).

Some call it “bureaucracy loathing” (Bozeman, 2000, p. 23). The fact that the field’s

major trade publication, The Bureaucrat, changed its name in 1992 to The Public

Manager reflects the need and desire of public administration practitioners to disassociate

themselves from the term bureaucracy.

Throughout its history in the U.S., public administration scholars looked towards

scientific methods of management as sources of inspiration. However, their relations with

scientific methods of management have not always been smooth or non-controversial. A

review of these relations can help us understand the isolation and/or insularity of the

field.

While the publication of Osborne & Gaebler’s Reinventing Government (1992) is

often considered the work that ushered in the reinvention movement and the new public

management (NPM) movement, it is only one of several attempts to reform public

14

administration in its history (Thompson & Riccucci, 1998, pp. 232-233). As part of the

NPM approach, scholars and practitioners looked to performance measurement practices

in business management, which aim to ensure accountability, efficiency, and effective

performance through a decentralization of managerial control in which managers at

different levels of an organization are given power and flexibility (Moynihan, 2006, p.

79). The NPM movement looks to business and performance measurement as inspiration

for governance.

The performance measurement movement is a child of NPM, and as a movement

in public administration, reflects the orientation towards business practices. Poister

(2003) identifies performance measurement as the “process of defining, monitoring, and

using objective indicators of the performance of organizations and programs on a regular

basis” (p. 1). This movement impacted not only the theoretical debates in in the field, but

it also led to significant congressional and executive actions that took place in the last

thirty years. The passage of the Government Performance and Review Act (GPRA) of

1993 required agencies to set goals and report performance measurements to Congress

(McNab & Melese, 2003). GPRA mandated 5-year strategic planning, annual goal

setting, and performance reports (Wholey, 1999, 295). Under GPRA, the Clinton

administration initiated the National Performance Review (NPR); as a result, an

interagency task force made 384 recommendations to save over $100 billion and cut the

government workforce by more than 10% (Kettl, 2000, p. 25). Over time, NPM has

become institutionalized for federal agency reporting.

Many voices in public administration have objected to NPM and the imposition of

business management practices on public administration (Lynch & Day, 2006; Radin,

15

2000; Stivers & Hummel, 2007; Wholey, 1999). (For a useful overview of these

objections, see Kettl, 2000). The objections can be summarized under the following

topical areas: complications of measurement, complexity of bureaucratic decision-

making, and the role of civil servants in U.S. society.

The debates over these topics provide clues for understanding the isolation of

public administration. They reveal that the field is searching for its core and struggling to

find it. While performance measurement practices have been embraced by many in

public administration, they are rejected by others. This rejection may help explain why

the public administration literature is not cited by other fields, or why some in public

administration refuse to acknowledge the business management literature addressing

these measurement issues.

An explanation for the lack of citations by business management journals of

public administration may be the failure of public administration to properly implement

performance measurement. There are several reasons for the lack of implementation of

performance measurement methods in public administration and/or their effectiveness.

These reasons can be summarized under two categories: the problem of who should

develop them and the problem of how the most objective measures can still be

manipulated based upon factors of political orientation (de Lancer Julnes & Holzer, 2001,

p. 694; Lynch & Day, 1996, p. 416; Wholey, 1999, p. 903). While performance

measurement has been a popular activity in federal, state, and local governments, it has

been shown to be less effective in implementation, as a result of the problems with the

complications of measurement (de Lancer Julnes, 2015, p. 2403).

16

Related to the criticism of performance measurement is the criticism of The

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA): that it does not fit into the

functions and realities of the U.S. federal and democratic system (Radin, 2000, p. 111).

For Radin, GPRA and similar reform programs attempted to create “generic activities and

requirements” that were largely composed of rhetorical devices that did not really impact

government decision-making processes (p. 111). Radin (1998) argues that, even in the

early stages of their development, the reform programs had problems that included

developing strategies, defining goals and performance measures, assigning responsibility

for implementation, and others (p. 307).

Stivers and Hummel (2007) criticize how the reformist trend of applying business

practice to public administration ignores the unique role of civil servants in society

dedicated to “the greater good” (p. 1010). Public good and public outputs are less

divisible and measurable than “widgets” (Lynch & Day, 2006, p. 416). Stivers and

Hummel also argue that business practices, such as the explosion of contracting out of

government services, are a direct threat to the field (p. 1015).

As discussed in this section, public administration, due to its unique role in

society, stands apart from business management in various aspects. I turn to next to the

isolation of the field from political science.

Isolation from political science

The isolation of public administration from political science can be explained

potentially by the definition of the former by its founders in the United States, and more

17

specifically by the “politics - administration dichotomy” they set (Rosenbloom, 2008, pp.

57-60). The notion that there must exist a cadre of politically neutral and professional

public administrators which was initiated by Wilson and articulated by Gulick,

characterizes mainstream public administration thought (Lane & Wamsley, 1998, pp.

394-395).

For its practitioners to able to manage their appropriate areas, public

administration should be separated from politics. The first significant act that aimed to

make this separation was the Pendleton Act of 1883. This act launched the federal civil

service reform and established the principle of merit appointments in public

bureaucracies. Since then the politics - administration dichotomy has been a cornerstone

of traditional public administration theory (Ostrom, 1989, p. 23).

Woodrow Wilson’s (1887) essay “The Study of Administration” is considered by

many to be the work that marked the beginning of public administration as a specific and

“self-conscious” field of study in the United States (Fry & Raadschelders, 1989, p. 2;

Kettl, 2000, p. 8; Ostrom, 1989, p. 20; Rosenbloom, 1998, p. 17). Wilson argues that

public administration should focus on how government is administered and that

practitioners should be given the proper authority to manage in their appropriate areas

(pp. 197-222).

The Wilson essay was an important starting point in conceptualizing and

justifying the dichotomy. Gulick (1892-1993), another early contributor to the

development of public administration as a field, argued that politics and administration

serve as “heterogeneous functions” and should not be combined since that would produce

inefficiency (Ostrom, 1989, p. 32). As the field of public administration evolved over

18

time, the attention given to the politics-administration dichotomy changed and took new

forms. One way to separate administration from politics was to make it more scientific,

which led public administration scholars to adopt theories and practices, like “scientific

management,” which originated in the field of business management (Cox, et al., 2011, p.

8). This orientation toward scientific management brought public administration closer

to the field to business management and moved it away from political science, at least in

its early stages of the development.

Does the development of a professionalized, educated bureaucracy contribute to

the isolation of public administration, because it may fuel the popular resentment towards

elites? The emergence of a group of professionals who possess specialized knowledge,

and classified together as “bureaucrats” (Mosher, 1982, pp. 115-116), may have created a

target for such resentments. Waldo (1984) argued that these bureaucrats had to be

“wise,” “educated,” and “professional” and they had to understand the role of public

service in meeting human needs (p. 97). The professionalism of public management may

contribute to a perception of elitism, unintentionally. In this age of pessimism, public

administrators struggle with the stigma of being labeled as elitist. This perception may

lead to estrangement and a certain level of isolation of the field.

Having discussed the isolation from political science as a result of the politics –

administration dichotomy, it is also important to consider the critiques by political

scientists of the core of public administration as a field. One of the criticisms of public

administration, particularly by political scientists, is that because its scholars tried to

separate it from political science, it has become anti-democratic (Kettl, 2010, pp. 12-18).

And the perception of public administration as being anti-democratic in orientation may

19

offer one explanation of why political science literature is not citing or acknowledging

the literature of public administration.

A good example of this criticism is the controversy surrounding the Brownlow

Report. In the development of the American administrative state, the Brownlow Report

marks a shift to the age of “government by managers” in which the President’s

“executive power was construed to include administrative power” (Mosher, 1982, p. 84).

Inspired by the Papers on the Science of Administration (Gulick & Irwick, 1937), the

Brownlow Report resulted in the Reorganization Act, passed by Congress in April, 1939.

This legislation succeeded in bringing together important managerial agencies and

resulted in the creation of the Executive Office of the President. A significant aspect of

the Brownlow Report was that it joined the intellectual and academic forces of public

administration with the political force of the President for the first time in history

(Wamsley & Dudley, 1998, p. 325). According to Fitch (1990), the report established the

foundation for the most significant changes in the shape and influence of the executive

branch of the federal government since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution (p. 607).

An example of the estrangement between political science and public

administration may be seen in the differing views on the Brownlow Report. Brand (2008)

decries the “re-inventers” of the report for supporting a model of government that

subverts the Constitution and goes one step further: He condemns the field of public

administration as dangerous to democracy itself. He states: “The ultimate justification

for the creation of a managerial presidency was found in the emerging science of public

administration, and this science sought to replace the separation-of-powers framework

and its associated concept of executive power with a framework based on the separation

20

of politics and administration” (Brand, 2008, p. 72). Brand’s argument was not the first

of its kind. Political scientists like Landis (1938) questioned the very legitimacy of public

administration as a field earlier. Landis argued that public administration inappropriately

attempted to apply elements of organizational theory and management to government. In

Posner’s view (2007), the executive-centered model of the Brownlow Report

marginalizes Congress and violates the American separation of powers (p. 1028).

Sayre (1958), as an advocate of the political approach that questions the

professional neutrality of public administrators, declared that public administration is

“ultimately a problem in political theory” and that “the fundamental problem in a

democracy is responsibility to popular control” (p. 105). In contrast to NPM’s focus on

managerial efficiency and professional neutrality, the political approach to public

administration embraces the values of political representation, political responsiveness,

and the accountability of elected officials as essential elements of constitutional

democracy (Rosenbloom & Kravchuk, 2005, p. 28). Rather than public managers

seeking effective performance and efficiency from bureaus and agencies, in this view,

elected officials share the responsibility for performance in order to check the discretion

by public mangers (Sayre, 1958, p. 105). Those who support the political approach argue

that these values of political representation and responsiveness to the electorate have little

in common with the performance measurement orientation of NPM; the former worry

that the orientation of NPM may weaken commitments to democratic and constitutional

values (Piotrowski & Rosenbloom, 2002, p. 643).

Institutional imbalance theorists articulate the criticism by the supporters of the

political approach, beyond a mere criticism of bureaucracy and a defense of democracy

21

(Cox, et al., 2011, p. 280). According to this theory, an imbalance in the institutional

arrangements of society can lead to enfeebled institutions, no longer able to deliver

normative oversight, and thus lead to social instability brought about by the erosion of

standards (Hövermann, Groß, & Messner, 2016, pp. 323-233). The bureaucratic

overreach that was created by the separation of public administration and the executive

presidency casts public administration as dictatorial in character and impervious to the

Constitutional arrangements within U.S. democracy.

Intellectual/Identity Crisis

From time to time, scholars of public administration observed that it is in an

“intellectual crisis” (Ostrom, 1974; Pesch, 2005; Waldo, 1968). This crisis may have

contributed to the isolation of the field. Waldo (1984), writing in the second edition of the

Administrative State, observed an intellectual crisis in public administration in his time

during the height of the Reagan administration, by acknowledging that these are “days of

crisis and confusion,” that “a disintegration of the old outlook and the synthesis of a new

must be recognized” (pp. 202-203). He did not say what this “new” outlook would be,

but he did propose an ambitious, and ambiguous, agenda for public administration, which

may have contributed to the intellectual crisis, because it was so ambitious and

unachievable. He argued: “administrative thought must establish a working relationship

with every major province in the realm of human learning” (p. 203). This bold, but

largely unattainable, statement of vision crystalizes the struggle of public administration

in embracing an intellectual core.

22

I propose that the intellectual crisis of public administration has four components:

lack of core theory; lack of methodological rigor; the emphasis on values, not empirical

evidence in public administration research and scholarship; and a lack of a common

identity. Each of these may be an explanation of the observation that the literature of

public administration is not cited with great frequency by other disciplines. In addition, I

address the division between public administration and the field of public policy even

though they are grouped together in the Web of Science database.

Lack of core theory

It is generally accepted that there is no “core theory” of public administration,

although it has a rich intellectual history (Riccucci, 2010, p. 6; Newland, 1994, p. xi).

Public administration may lack coherence as an intellectual discipline although it

contains a substantial amount of accumulated knowledge (Rosenbloom, 2005, p. 14;

Kettl, 2000, p. 7; Newland, 1994, p. x). Pollitt (2010) notes that if the scholarly

community of public administration were a patient undergoing a mental health

assessment, the diagnosis would be that it "suffers from multiple personality disorder" (p.

S292). The intellectual crisis in public administration may be a result of this lack of a

theoretical core (Kettl, 2000, p. 13; Raadschelders, 2011, p. 917; Riccucci, 2010, p. 7;

Rosenbloom, 1983, p. 219).

The lack of intellectual core of public administration is a possible explanation of

why the field imports concepts and theories from others, but others do not reciprocate. If

the field is in a state of an intellectual crisis because of the lack of a core theory or

23

knowledge base, it makes sense that it is open to search for knowledge from other fields.

The lack of core theory and subsequent intellectual crisis can also help explain why other

fields are reluctant to reach out to public administration as a source of knowledge: They

may not know what specifically would be useful in the public administration knowledge

for them.

Lack of methodological rigor

It is argued that the studies in public administration often lack conceptual

integrity, methodological rigor, and/or empirical evidence (Fry & Raadschelders, 1989, p.

351; Newland, 1994, xiii; Ostrom, 1989, p. 29). The publications in public administration

are often based on qualitative case studies and government agencies or bureaus serve as

their units of analysis. These studies lack theory and empirical hypothesis testing and

they are usually prescriptive (Ostrom, p. 29). This criticism—whether it is correct or a

mere misperception—may contribute to the isolation of the field: Researchers in other

fields may not want to cite studies in public administration because of the perception that

it lacks methodological rigor.

In fact, the lack of methodical rigor was a point brought up by Simon (1946) in

his criticism of Waldo’s rhetoric and of that of “most other political theorists” and public

administration scholars (p. 496). Simon argued that the “loose, literary, metaphorical

style” of Waldo revealed a standard of “unrigor [sic]…[which]while tolerated in political

theory, would not receive a passing grade in the elementary course on logic, Aristotelian

24

or symbolic” (p. 496). It is conceivable that the mainstream approaches to public

administration, as represented in the language of Waldo, may be unacceptable to those

who share Simon’s perception that it lacks scientific rigor.

Focus on values over empirical evidence

The mainstream public administration thinking has been normative. It has been

focused on values (e.g., the values of democratic governance), rather than describing

empirical evidence. The focus on values also contributes to a crisis of identity in public

administration and characterizes the field (Raadschelders, 2011, p. 917; Kettl, 2000, p.

13; Riccucci, 2010, 7). This normative orientation may be one of the reasons the

scholars from other fields do not view public administration as a social scientific field.

The value-orientation was articulated in Dwight Waldo’s seminal work The

Administrative State (1984; originally published in 1948). For Waldo and his followers,

values must be included in both the study and the practice of public administration (Fry &

Raadschelders, 1989, p. 239; Lynn, 2001, p. 144). Waldo describes how the study of

administrative processes should address the problem “of what should be done” rather

than the problem of “what is the case?” (p. 171). This contrast defines the distinction

between physical and social sciences in that the latter is concerned with the study of

human beings. For Waldo, human beings, unlike the subjects of physical sciences, are

characterized by what he identifies as “thinking” and “valuing” (p. 171). He states:

“Thinking implies creativeness, free will. Valuing implies morality, conceptions of right

and wrong. It is submitted that the established techniques of science are inapplicable to

25

thinking and valuing human beings” (p. 171). In Waldo’s view, the importance of values

in public administration clashes with scientific approaches. Within the realm of public

administration, he asserts, the importance of values negates a mechanistic or scientific

treatment about what government should do within the realm of human affairs (pp. 171-

172).

Waldo’s legacy can be best understood in his position on the facts versus values

dichotomy. The famous Simon versus Waldo debate sets the stage for the conflict in

public administration over this important dichotomy. The debate took place between

Herbert Simon and Dwight Waldo in the American Political Science Review in 1952. The

debate is a critical intellectual demarcation point, because it demonstrates the contrasting

world views toward how research, and administrative action, should be conducted. In the

debate both scholars referenced their previous works, primarily Simon’s Administrative

Behavior (1947) and Waldo’s The Administrative State (1948).

The Simon - Waldo debate continues to be a central point of division among

public administration scholars, particularly on the meaning, role, and limitations of

science for administrative study and the practical and analytical differences between

values and facts in administrative decision making (Harmon, 1989, p. 437). To Simon

(1946), knowledge of administrative decision making must be based upon evidence and

facts and those facts must be separated from values (p. 64). While Waldo praises

Simon’s contributions to the field with the publication of his book Administrative

Behavior (1947), he also criticizes Simon’s approach to decision making. Waldo argues

that Simon was attempting to reinvent the classical politics - administration dichotomy,

where “values” were to be decided by politics while “facts” belonged to administration;

26

administrators were supposed to carry out political goals objectively (Stillman, 2015, p.

3341). Simon opposes this characterization and states that he and Waldo are not even

speaking the same language (p. 496). This differences in language may be seen in

Simon’s insistence on using scientific terminology, contrasted with Waldo’s rhetoric

using normative language of public administration terminology. Simon argues that the

use of scientific language is necessary in empirical reasoning and criticizes Waldo and

other political theorists for not using scientific language: “For this reason, the kind of

prose I encounter in writings on political theory, decorated with assertion, invective, and

metaphor, sometimes strikes me as esthetically pleasing, but seldom convincing” (p.

494). The main issue of contention between Waldo and Simon is that they cannot agree

on the proper role of “science” and of “values” in public administration. Regardless of

who was right or wrong in this debate, it can be argued that Waldo became the primary

representative (if not the progenitor) of the mainstream normative tradition of public

administration, and this tradition contributed to at least the perception that public

administration is not “scientific.” This image may have contributed to the field’s isolation

and insularity.

Lack of a common identity

What is public administration, as a field of study and practice? The difficulty in

answering this question reveals the problem of the lack of a common identity among the

scholars and practitioners of the field. As early as in the 1960s, Waldo (1968, pp. 3-6)

identified an “identity crisis” in public administration. This crisis can be observed in

27

many debates that took place among the scholars of the field, particularly between those

who argued that public administration should be run like a business and their critics who

argued that would not be possible or desirable. I summarized the arguments on both sides

in the previous section.

Public administration scholars have not been able to define a common identity,

partly because of the tug of war between those who support the adoption of private

business practices for the field and others who oppose that. This may explain the

tendency of other fields not to cite public administration: Its intellectual core is torn.

The controversies over the NPM and performance measurement literatures

illustrate the problem with lack of common identity in public administration. As I noted

in the previous section, many in the field have criticized and rejected NPM on the belief

that it misapplied business practices to government. Also, public administration is

castigated as being anti-democratic by its critics in political science.

I argue that the lack of a common identity helps to explain the isolation of the

field of public administration from business management and political science. The lack

of common identity can help partially explain why public administration may cite

business management, and to a lesser extent political science, but this may not be

reciprocated by the publications of those fields.

The separation of public policy

In the research of the whole networks in this dissertation, it became clear that

public policy journals separated themselves from the other public administration journals

28

over time, although they are broadly grouped together by the Web of Science. An in-

depth discussion of the development of the policy sciences and of policy analysis is

beyond the scope of this research; instead, I attempt only to provide some broad

definitions to clarify why this separation happened.

In order to clarify this separation, it is necessary to define public policy. While it

is impossible to find a single definition, Birkland (2011) offers a set of key attributes that

can be discerned to identify the field. These attributes broadly include the concept of

public policy as a response to a problem; an act that is oriented toward a goal or solution;

something made on the “public’s behalf,” something that is interpreted and implemented

by public or private actors, with their own motivations; and an action or inaction that is

made by governments (pp. 8-9). Often the term public policy refers to various areas of

study including public policy processes, comparative public policy, public policy

analysis, and public policy research (p. 14).

Policy analysis, a term that is used sometimes separately from public policy

studies, signifies an area of study that is not so easily defined. Weimer and Vining

(2005) define policy analysis as “client-oriented advice relevant to public decisions and

informed by social values” (p. 24). Morçöl (2014) offers an ideal type definition of

public policy analysis as an activity in which “policy analysts, on behalf of a benevolent

government, identify the problems of a society, find objective solutions to them,

implement the solutions, and then verify that the policy goals have been reached” (p. 53).

There are various dimensions of policy analysis, including the conflict between empirical

and normative arguments (Fischer, 2007), economic efficiency in opposition to social

29

well-being (Mettler & Sorell, 2014, 152), and international or globalized views in

contrast to a U.S. orientation (Radin, 2013, p. 55).

Policy analysis is linked to public administration but continues to delineate itself

as a separate field of study. There is an overlap between policy analysis and public

administration and one could argue that both are actually concerned with similar

activities of a public nature. Policy analysis as a field grew out of the interdisciplinary,

intellectual heritage of public administration (Radin, 2013, pp. 11-29). While both

public administration and public policy deal with a notion of “public-ness,” public

administration is more concerned with management of public programs and

organizations, while public policy is the interdisciplinary study of processes and impacts

of those processes more broadly (Weimer and Vining, 2005, p. 29).

Structure of the Whole Citation Networks: Social Network Analysis Concepts

The concepts described in the previous section apply directly to the ego-network

analyses I conducted for this dissertation. In this section, I present a conceptualization of

the whole network analyses I conducted to answer the second set of my research

questions (What is the intellectual structure of the field of public administration, as

represented in the citation networks of its journals?). This conceptualization is based on

some of the concepts used by SNA researchers. These concepts can help explain the

relationships between the journals, especially the prestige of the core (most central)

journals of the field (JPART and PAR). Why do these journals receive such high levels of

30

citations from other journals? Also, these concepts can help explain the existence of

clusters within the citation whole networks of public administration.

Before presenting the concepts, it is necessary to describe how this study is

different from others that have been conducted to examine citation networks. As far as I

know, this is the first study of its kind to use SNA to examine citation networks at the

journal level. However, it is not the first one to discuss SNA and journal level metrics.

In a paper about the study of information exchanges, Haythornthwaite (1996) calls for the

use of SNA to study information sharing; she argues that SNA can reveal information

about actors as nodes in the networks and the information that connects the nodes (p.

323). While she does not specify the unit of analysis, the discussion of the transfer of

information as relevant to content, direction, and tie strength is relevant to my analyses.

Her article is important because Haythornthwaite specifically addresses how the study of

ego networks and whole networks could be used to identify various dimensions of the

social networks of citations (pp. 328-329). She states that the techniques of SNA “can be

used to indicate characteristics of positions held in a network and characteristics of the

network structure” (p. 339).

Perceptions of prestige based upon surveys of journal editors have been

conducted by various authors (Bernick & Krueger 2010; Forrester & Watson, 1994;

Vocino & Elliott, 1982, 1984). Colson (1990) conducted a citation analysis of the

journals at the time comparing impact factors to perceptions of esteem from the surveys

of journal prestige. Others used SNA to study the connections between articles. For

example, Lin & Liao (2008) used SNA to examine “word of mouth” research in

marketing publications. In constructing a citation network of articles, the authors

31

presented centrality scores to show the visibility of the actors in the network, using in-

degree centrality as a centrality measure and centralization scores as a whole network

measure (p. 217).

In my study, the unit of analysis (i.e., the node or the actor) is the journal itself,

and not the article or the author. In this approach, the journal (the unit), may be the

citing journal or the cited journal. For the citing journal, measures of out-degree ties can

be calculated from the ego (citing journal) to the alter (cited journal). For the cited

journal, measures of in-degree ties can be calculated from the alter (cited journal) to the

ego (citing journal). In this analytical approach, the transfer of in-citations and out-

citations can be measured in terms of tie strengths, dispersion, centrality, cohesion, and

hierarchical clustering.

As I describe in more detail in the methods section, in-citation and out-citation

measures can be used as indicators of isolation and insularity. The measures of the cited

references (or the incoming ties, of the “alters” citing the “egos”) would indicate levels of

isolation. The measures of citing references (or the outgoing ties, of the “egos” citing the

“alters”), on the other hand, would indicate levels of insularity. In-citations represent the

degree of the impact of the articles journals and therefore represent the prestige of the

journal. Out-citations may be interpreted as the reach of the journal.

After these clarifications of the general concepts of citation networks, I now turn

to two important concepts that I adopted from the SNA literature for my analyses of these

networks: small-world networks and scale-free networks. These concepts will be

expanded further in the results section.

32

Small world networks

A small world network is defined as a network with “low density, high closure

but short average geodesic lengths” (Watts & Strogatz, 1998, pp. 440-442). In other

words, a small world network is one where there are cohesive groups, showing the high

closure, but also high levels of connectivity in which nodes can reach across the network

in an efficient manner, showing short geodesic paths (Robins, 2015, p. 31). The “small

world model,” as it is referred by Watts & Strogatz, may be defined as having a low

average path length and a high clustering coefficient (Borgatti, et. al., 2013, p. 260). The

clustering coefficients of the public administration networks for the years examined will

be presented in the results section.

The small world networks concept is often explained with the “six degrees of

separation” notion. This notion suggests that there is a path between any two people of

approximately six nodes. It is popularized by John Guare’s play and film, Six Degrees of

Separation, and in science literature by Watts’s (2004) book Six Degrees: The Science of

a Connected Age. The small world idea is based on the work of social psychologist

Stanley Milgram in the 1960s. In his famous experiment, he hypothesizes that everyone

on the planet is connected through only a few intermediaries. Milgram (1967) conducted

a letter writing experiment in which participants were asked to forward letters to a

stranger. They would send the letter to a personal friend that they knew was somehow

closer to the stranger. Ultimately, he found that that the letters were passed through

approximately six times to reach the target.

How does this concept apply to citation networks? Watts & Strogatz (1998)

identified small world networks as neither completely regular nor completely random, in

33

that they identify these types of social networks as lying somewhere in between (p. 440).

The essential concept is that human social systems “are very clumpy”, as a result of

various factors, including homophily, geographical concentration, and compactness

(Borgatti, et. al, 2013, p. 156). In this small world network, the “regular network is

rewired to introduce increasing amounts of disorder” (Watts & Strogatz, 1998, p. 440).

Therefore, in thinking about the public administration journals as nodes in the network,

we can see how many journals attach to the “stars” (central nodes, such as PAR and

JPART) and how certain journals begin to cluster together based on affiliation.

I argue that the citation networks of public administration fit into this

conceptualization. In essence, they are “clumpy” networks with short paths between the

nodes. As I will present in the results section, based on the clustering coefficients and

Small World Indexes of the networks, there is a high level of transitivity among the

journals. In the case of social ties, the implication is that two people would be much

more likely to be connected to each other if they have another connection in common

(Newman, Barabási, & Watts, 2006, p. 286). As applied to a citation network, two

journals are more likely to be connected to each other if they have a common journal that

they are also connected to.

Different measures may be used to demonstrate the existence of small world

networks, including the clustering coefficient and the Small World Index. One may think

of the clustering coefficient as a measure of local density of the extent to which the

nearest neighbors in a network are connected with one another. The Small World Index

it is a measure that provides a score showing if a certain network is more clustered than a

random network. The definitions and interpretations of the three types of clustering

34

coefficients and the Small World Index are presented in the methods and the results

sections.

Scale-free networks

The core concept of the scale-free network conceptualization is that success

breeds success, or as it is commonly stated, that “the rich get richer.” Barabási & Albert

(1999) proposed a distribution, or Power Law Distribution, in social networks to describe

scale-free networks. These networks are considered scale free in that they did not follow

a normal, or random, distribution; instead they are highly skewed, with few high-degree

nodes, i.e. nodes that attract disproportionately high numbers of connections (such as

citations) (pp. 509-512).

Even earlier than Barabási & Albert’s conceptualization, de Solla Price (1976)

argued that there exists a “cumulative advantage distribution” that provides a statistical

model of why highly cited papers will continue to be cited with great frequency, while a

paper with few citations is unlikely to be cited (p. 292). He concluded that this skewed or

hyperbolic distribution is a condition that reveals how citations may be generated based

on the relationship of the success of already established literature (pp. 304-305). This

distribution follows a Power Law; it reveals a skew in the distribution towards higher

degree nodes. Essentially, as noted by Robins (2015), a new actor in a network is much

more likely to connect to more well-established actors, depending on that actors’

popularity (p. 30). This observation supports the established idea that “the rich get

35

richer” or that the most popular nodes are more likely to attract new followers or fans.

Just as in human interactions, this may take place in citation networks as well.

Another way to think about the scale-free conceptualization, as it relates to

journal citations, is that most of the journals will not be well connected (cited), while a

few nodes in the network will be highly connected (cited) to serve as hubs. Therefore, a

new journal, or a new article, is more likely to cite already established journals than other

new journals or articles.

I will discuss the concept of preferential attachment, as it relates to scale free

networks in more detail in the methods section. Recent studies questioned whether the

concept of scale-free networks or the Power Law distributions can be the “universal

organizing principle” of all networks (Broido & Clauset, 2018). Without mentioning the

technical details of the discussions on these concepts, I cite Broido and Clauset’s work as

a note of caution about the applications of the concepts to citation networks.

Summary

If the literature of public administration isolated from those of other academic

fields of study, why is that so? If the literature of public administration insular, why is

that so? The discussions in this section may help us answer these questions. I proposed

two broad explanations for different levels of isolation and insularity: the unique nature

of the field and the intellectual/identity crisis of the field of public administration. I

sought to explore these explanations by reviewing the intellectual trends in public

administration, particularly within the modern history of the field in the United States.

36

In terms of the ego network analyses, the unique nature of the field offers an

explanation as to why it is not cited by other fields, and as to why it may be quite insular

in terms of citing other fields. The intellectual crisis in the field is another reason as to

why the field may not be cited since it may not be viewed as a “scientific” field. As part

of this intellectual crisis, the lack of a common identity may also help to explain the

isolation of public administration from other fields, particularly business management

and political science. But because of the crisis, public administration scholars may keep

reaching out to other fields, in search of answers to the questions in public administration.

37

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

Social Network Analyses of Scholarly Communication

In this chapter I describe my methodological approach. To answer my research

questions, I used two types of social network analyses (SNA): ego network analyses and

whole network analyses. In the following paragraphs, I first present a rationale for using

the social network analyses. Then I discuss the details of the specific methods I used in

data collection and the ego-network analyses and whole-network analyses I used to

answer the research questions.

The first examples of SNA were Moreno’s (1934) hand drawn “socio-grams” of

the friendship networks of children in a classroom. There have been many contributions

to the development of SNA since then, by scholars of various fields who were connected

to associations and institutions, such as the International Network for Social Network

Analysis (INSNA) (which then sponsored the journal Social Networks and the Sun Belt

conferences), and the original School of Social Sciences at the University of California,

Irvine, where UCINET, currently the most popular analytical software, was originally

developed (Freeman, 2004, pp. 129-158). I used UCINET in my analyses for this

dissertation.

Since in this study I am focusing specifically on journal level metrics of scholarly

citations retrieved from electronic data sources, it is important to explain how SNA can

be used in analyses of citations of and by journal articles. What does it mean to cite an

38

article? A cited reference is a relation (connection, link, or tie) between the citing and

cited article. Such a connection shows that the citing work (journal article, book, etc.)

acknowledges the cited work. This acknowledge may be in the form of paying homage,

giving praise, providing background, or criticizing/correcting the cited work.

Why do scholars use citations? In the first major work addressing the reasons for

scholarly citations, Garfield (1965) offered fifteen explanations, based upon a normative

and constructivist viewpoint, of why citations are used:

Paying homage to pioneers,

Giving credit for related work (homage to peers),

Identifying methodology, equipment, etc.,

Providing background reading,

Correcting one’s own work,

Correcting the work of others,

Criticizing previous work,

Substantiating claims,

Altering to forthcoming work,

Providing leads to poorly disseminated, poorly indexed, or uncited work,

Authenticating data and classes of fact (physical constants, etc.,),

Identifying original publications in which an idea or concept was discussed,

Identifying original publication or other work describing an eponymic concept or

term,

Disclaiming work of ideas of others (negative claims),

39

Disputing priority claims of others (negative homage). (p. 85)

This rationale, while ground-breaking in providing explanations for the use of

scholarly citations, was not based upon empirical testing; Garfield (1965) did not include

any frequencies of the occurrence of each explanation or other statistical support

(Bornmann & Daniel, 2008, p. 51). Nevertheless, the listing provides explanations of the

possible relational connections between articles. It shows that citing a work is an act of

acknowledgement of the importance of the cited work in one form or another: paying

homage, giving praise, providing background, or criticizing/correcting the source. The

citation by the citing journal of the cited journal can be considered as a measure of

prestige, because prestige is the extent to which an actor in a network “receives” or

“serves as the object” of relations sent by others in the network (Knoke & Yang, 2008, p.

69).

There are three possible units of analyses in the analyses of citations using SNA:

journal articles, journals, and authors. Journal articles may be the units, or they can be

aggregated in such a way that journals are the units. In other words, a researcher may

analyze the citations between specific articles or the total number of articles in a journal

that cited the articles in another journal. Also, a researcher may investigate the citation

networks among authors.

De Solla Price’s (1965) pioneering work on the networks of scientific

publications is an example of using journal articles as units of analyses. He identified the

ties between journal articles published in 1961 and then analyzed the patterns in these

ties. His work established the notion that tracking and measuring citations across

40

journals provides a “broad picture” of the research environment and the nature of using

citations as references in papers (p. 510).

The famous “Erdős number” is an illustration of how the ties between authors can

be used in network analyses. This number show the closeness of each academic writer to

the Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős in the network of academics. In its calculation,

the numbers of co-authorship among researchers are combined into a network of ties.

Then the paths in these ties are used to calculate the Erdős number of each author.

There is no other research that I know of that uses SNA to link scholarly citations

through journal level metrics. Burgess & Shaw’s (2010) application of SNA to editorial

board membership data for 36 of the high-ranking journals forming the Financial Times

list for grading business schools is an example of using journals as the unit of analysis. In

my analyses, I also used journals as my units of analysis, but somewhat differently from

the way Burgess & Shaw did. I considered each journal as a “node” and the information

that is communicated to/from that journal to another journal as a “tie.” The citations

(ties) connect the nodes in a network of journals. There have not been any other studies

that used journals as units of analyses in SNA the way I did it.

The ties may be directional or non-directional in SNA. If the tie between two

individuals is measured as mutual “friendship,” for example, then it is non-directional.

The ties in commercial relations are typically directional: A lender lends money to a

borrower, so the relation flows in one direction. Citation ties are directional and they can

be analyzed in two ways. The information flows from the "citing" journal (or the ego) to

the "cited" journal (or the alter). A researcher can analyze both the incoming citations to a

41

journal and the outgoing citations from that journal. I conducted social network analyses

with both kinds of ties.

Analytical Approaches

I conducted social network analyses of journal citations in to the InCites Journal

Citation Reports database of the Web of Science. I used two different sets of social

network analysis methods for the ego-network and whole-network parts of my

dissertation, as I describe below.

For the ego network analyses, I conducted calculations of measures of

heterogeneity and ratios of ties. These measures are based on categorical classifications

of the journal sources from the Web of Science. For the whole network analyses of the

public administration journals, I used various measures, including the clustering

coefficient, the Small World Index, Bonacich (beta) power centrality, degree centrality,

density, core periphery analyses, and clique/hierarchical clustering analyses. In both the

ego network and the whole network approaches, I examined the in-degree and out-degree

relationships of the journals for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015. The coding based upon

the Web of Science subject taxonomy is presented in Appendix A. The taxonomy criteria

that I established based upon the Web of Science classification system is presented in

Appendix B.

42

Data Collection

Citation data for ego and whole network analyses

I obtained the citation data I used for the ego and whole network analyses from

journal article citations in the InCites Journal Citation Reports software from the Web of

Science. This software provides access to the citing (out-citation) and cited (in-citation)

data from the Web of Science Core Collection databases. It allows users to compare

citation data from journals indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection. The Web of

Science Core Collection includes over 12,000 journals from 10 indexes, including the

Social Sciences Citation Index, which includes the journal citations I used in this study

(Clarivate Analytics, 2017, par. 1). The articles that are indexed in the journals are

restricted to just citable items, in that they are research articles or reviews that cite over

100 other articles. Editorials, letters, news items, and meeting abstracts are not included

as citations in the Web of Science.

Selection of journals for ego network analyses

I selected the three “top journals” in public administration, political science, and

business management for comparisons between the fields. There is a broad level of

classification to the journals in the Web of Science. In the selections of the top journals I

used two criteria. In selecting the top journals, I identified first those journals in public

administration or political science that had the single classification of those fields only.

For example, a journal should be classified as only “public administration” or “political

43

science” with those single classifications. I excluded those journals that are cross-

classified (e.g., classified as both public administration and political science) and placed

them in a different category. In the case of business management, I selected the top

journals that had the dual classification of “business” and “management” since this was

necessary to obtain a list of the top management journals. Relying only on the single

classification of “management” would produce a list of journals focused exclusively on

supply chain and operations management.

Second, I identified the “top journals” using the journal impact factor (JIF)

metric: I selected the journals that have the highest JIFs among the journals that are

classified only as public administration journals in 2015. I did the same for those

journals that are classified only as political science journals and business management

journals. I had to exclude some of the journals from my analyses, despite the fact that

they have high JIFs. A major example of the journals I excluded from the analyses was

Governance, which was cross-classified as a public administration and political science

journal. Annals, such as the Academy of Management Annals and the Annals of the

American Academy of Political Science, while often frequently cited, were also excluded

since they are secondary sources and not primary sources as academic journal

publications.

Top journals in public administration and other top journals

Within the Web of Science, Journal Citation Reports lists 46 journal titles in

public administration for 2015. I selected the top three journals, based on their JIF scores

44

in each field, for my ego analyses. The journals I selected for the three fields based on the

two criteria (sole classification in one field and highest JIF) are shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Top Journals in Public Administration, Political Science, and Business

Management by JIF in 2015*

Top Public

Administration

Journals

Top Political

Science Journals

Top Business

Management

Journals

JPART: Journal of

Public

Administration

Research and

Theory (3.893)

AJPS: American

Journal of Political

Science (4.515)

AMR: Academy of

Management

Review (7.288)

PAR: Public

Administration

Review (2.636)

PANL: Political

Analysis (3.491)

AMJ: Academy of

Management

Journal (6.233)

ARPA: American

Review of Public

Administration

(1.26)

APSR: American

Political Science

Review (3.444)

ASQ:

Administrative

Science Quarterly

(5.316)

*Listed with common abbreviations in parentheses

The most highly cited journal in the field of public administration in 2015, with

the impact factor of 2.83, was the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

(JPART). It is the official journal of the Public Management Research Association and it

has been published since 1991 (Public Management Research Association, 2017;

Clarivate Analytics, 2017). JPART describes itself as a journal that “is committed to

diverse and rigorous scholarship and serves as an outlet for the best conceptual and

theory-based empirical work in the field” (JPART, 2016). The journal, founded by H.

George Frederickson, has seen a handful of editors since its inception in 1990, with the

45

current editor (as of 2018) Bradley Wright from the University of Georgia, who has been

serving since 2013. JPART is published quarterly.

Public Administration Review (PAR) is the oldest journal in the field of public

administration and it has a 2015 impact factor of 1.973. PAR is the official journal of the

American Society for Public Administration and it has been published since 1940

(Clarivate Analytics, 2016). A major objective of the journal is to cater to both

practitioner and academic audiences (Stillman & Raadschelders, 2011, p. 926).

Beginning in 1940, with the first editorial team of Leonard D. White as editor in chief

and Don K. Price as managing editor, PAR has focused on a wide range of topics in

advancing the “science, processes, and art of public administration” in order to work in

“strengthening and preserving democracy at home and abroad” (Terry, 2000, p. 2). In

2011, a new editorial team took over PAR, James Perry serving as the editor-in-chief of

the journal and Michael McGuire as managing editor (PA Times, 2011). Richard Feiock

of Florida State University was named as the managing editor in 2015. As of 2018, the

two co-editors of PAR are R. Paul Battaglio, the University of Texas at Dallas, and

Jeremy L. Hall, the University of Central Florida. PAR is published bi-monthly.

The American Review of Public Administration (ARPA) is published in

association with the Section on Public Administration Research of the American Society

for Public Administration. It describes itself as “one of the elite scholarly peer-reviewed

journals in public administration and public affairs” and a journal whose “identity lies at

the core of the field of public administration” (ARPA, 2017). The current co-editors (as

of 2018) are Stephanie Newbold and Marc Holzer of Rutgers University. Founded in

46

1967 as the Midwest Review of Public Administration, it changed its name in 1981 to the

American Review of Public Administration. ARPA is published 8 times a year.

The three top political science journals were the American Journal of Political

Science (AJPS), the American Political Science Review (APSR), and Political Analysis

(PANL).

As the most highly cited journal in political science in 2015 with a JIF of 4.515,

AJPS is published in association with the Midwest Political Science Association

(Clarivate Analytics, 2017). Founded in 1950 as the Midwest Journal of Political

Science, it changed its name in 1972 to AJPS (Serials Solutions, 2017). AJPS is

published quarterly.

APSR is a quarterly publication that was established in 1906 (Serials Solutions,

2017). APSR is published in association with the American Political Science

Association. It had a 2015 impact factor of 3.444 (Clarivate Analytics, 2017).

Political Analysis is published in association with the Society for Political

Methodology and the American Political Science Association Methodology Section. It

had a 2015 impact factor or 3.491 (Clarivate Analytics). It was founded in 1974 and

briefly ceased publication between 1986 to 1988. Political Analysis is published quarterly

(Serials Solutions, 2017).

The top business/management journals were the Academy of Management Review

(AMR), the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), and Administrative Science

Quarterly (ASQ).

47

AMR, published by the Academy of Management, had a 2015 JIF of 7.288

(Clarivate Analytics, 2017). AMR is a quarterly publication that was founded in 1963

(Serials Solutions, 2017).

AMJ is also published by the Academy of Management. It had a 2015 JIF of

6.233 (Clarivate Analytics, 2017). AMJ is a bi-monthly publication that was founded in

1957 (Serials Solutions, 2017).

ASQ is published in association with the Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School

of Management at Cornell University. It was founded in 1956 (Serials Solutions, 2017).

ASQ had a 2015 JIF of 5.316 (Clarivate Analytics, 2017). ASQ is published quarterly.

The impact factors of these 9 journals in 2005, 2010, and 2015 are presented in

Table 3.2. This table lists the JIF scores for the three years used for the purpose of this

study.

Table 3.2

Journal Impact Factor (JIF) for Journals in Public Administration, Political

Science, and Management 2005-2015, sorted by discipline*

JIF

2005

JIF

2010

JIF

2015

ARPA 0.615 1 1.26

JPART 1.451 2.086 3.893

PAR 1.099 1.141 2.636

AJPS 1.845 2.588 4.515

APSR 3.233 3.278 3.444

PANL 1 1.864 3.491

AMR 4.254 6.72 7.288

AMJ 2.2 5.25 6.233

ASQ 2.719 3.684 5.316

*Listed by common abbreviations

48

As noted in Table 3.2, AMR has had the highest JIF scores of all the journals for

all the years. With the exception of APSR in 2005, the business management journals had

higher JIF scores than the other journals in all years. It is interesting the note the

consistently high JIF scores of JPART among the public administration journals. It is

also noteworthy that in 2015, JPART had higher JIF scores than two of the political

science journals as well. In considering the overall JIF scores, it is notable that the

business management journals had the highest overall JIF scores among the three groups

of journals, followed by political science, and then public administration. Regarding the

political science journals, I included POL ANAL because it had the third highest JIF

score in political science in 2015. I did not include the highly cited Journal of Politics,

because it had a lower JIF score in 2015 (1.840) than PANL (3.491).

Selection of journals for whole network analyses

I selected the journals for the whole network analyses based on the indexing of

journals in the Web of Science. I selected the journal that were indexed with the subject

term of “public administration” in the Web of Science. Because the Web of Science

updates its journal listings in each field over time, there are different numbers of the

journals included in the whole networks of public administration journals in each of the

years I analyzed: 23 journals in 2005, 38 in 2010, and 46 in for 2015. The lists of the

journals for each year are included in Appendix C. These different numbers created

49

some difficulties in the comparisons of the whole network analyses for these years, as I

will discuss in the results section.

There are different methods to measure prestige for the major journals of public

administration. Some researchers conducted surveys of perceptions of prestige (Bernick

& Krueger 2010; Colson, 2010; Forrester & Watson, 1994; Vocino & Elliott,1984).

Bernick & Krueger (2010) used results from a survey of editors and board members

about their opinions of journal prestige, in addition to using the so-called “objective”

measures of journal impact factor scores. As referenced previously, Colson (1990)

conducted a citation analysis and compared their impact factors to perceptions of esteem.

Forrester & Watson (1994) conducted a survey of editors and board members to identify

and rank the top journals based on the perceptions of quality. They found that the most

highly ranked journals had broad mission statements, focused on core public

administration issues, had stringent review requirements, and were published in the

United States (p. 474). Vocino & Elliott (1984) used time-series data from survey of

members of the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) to measure

strengths of feeling and breadth of recognition of particular journals over time. They

noted a difference of perception of prestige between academics and practitioners of

public administration (p. 43) My study is different from these earlier studies in that it

does not rely on survey data to measure perceptions, but rather uses the journal impact

factor as a criterion for selection, and then calculates various SNA measures of prestige,

such as centrality and measures of dispersion.

50

Abbreviations of journals for calculations, tables, and figures

A challenge in dealing with the number of journals and other sources in research

like this one is to address the different abbreviations that are used for them. Since it is

not practical to consistently spell out the full journal name, such as the Journal of Public

Administration Research & Theory, every time it is mentioned, abbreviations must be

used. The Web of Science data, on which this research is based, uses specific

abbreviations to reference sources. For example, the Web of Science abbreviation for the

Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory is J PUBL ADM RES THEOR.

However, in common usage, the journal is known as JPART. This is also the case with

many other journals. Because of the large number of data sets and analyses that I needed

to use in this study (over 100 data sets and a Masterfile of over 1,750 unique sources that

calculate links between thousands of citing and cited references), it was necessary to have

consistency in the abbreviations I used in all the calculations. I used the Web of Science

abbreviations in all UCINET analyses.

Unfortunately, these Web of Science abbreviations are often long and unwieldy

to display in tables and figures. Therefore, for simplicity and clarity of presentation, I

used shorter abbreviations in the text and all the tables and figures where I referenced the

top 3 journals of each academic field (JPART, PAR, and ARPA for public

administration; AJPS, APSR, and PANL for political science; AMR, AMJ, and ASQ for

business management). The only exception to this approach is the Figures 4.4 to 4.7 in

which I display the Hierarchical Clustering Dendogram of Overlap Matrixes. Due to the

tight space needed to display these dendograms, I needed to use an alternative set of

51

abbreviations to fit all the titles into the figures. These special abbreviations are listed in

the parentheses after each journal listing in Appendix C.

Ego Network Analyses

To investigate the relative degrees of isolation and insularity of the journal

citations in public administration, political science, and business management, I

conducted a series of ego-network analyses. I selected the top-three journals in these

three fields by the journal impact factor scores of the journals in each field. Then I

conducted ego-network analyses of both “the cited” (in-citation) and “citing” (out-

citation) references of these top-three journals in each field for the years 2005, 2010, and

2015. I conducted the heterogeneity analyses available in the ego-network option in

UCINET to investigate both the in-citations and out-citations of the journals in public

administration, and political science, and business management. I also calculated ratios

of the in-citation to the out-citations to show the relationships of the cited versus the

citing references.

I used in-citation and out-citation metrics as measures of isolation and insularity

respectively. The measures of the cited references (or the incoming ties, of the “alters”

citing the “egos”) would indicate levels of isolation. The measures of citing references

(or the outgoing ties, of the “egos” citing the “alters”), on the other hand, would indicate

levels of insularity.

52

In-citation measurements represent the degree of the “impacts” of the articles

published in a journal, and they are the bases of the computations of the “Journal Impact

Factor.” As such, in-citations represent the degree of the “prestige” of a journal among its

peers (other academic journals). My ego-network analyses of in-citations went beyond

the abstract computations of JIF and yielded specific results about the degrees of prestige

of the public administration, political science, and business management journals. I used

measures of heterogeneity and ratios of the in-degree and out-degree measures for the

journals to determine their relative impacts, as I discuss below.

Out-citations may be interpreted as the “reach” of a journal in the sense that they

are indicators of to what extent the authors of the articles published in a journal “reached

out” to the journal’s own field and other fields of study. I used these analyses to

investigate the insularity of the journals in public administration, political science, and

business/management. If the journals in a particular field cite those in other fields less,

relative to the citations of the journals in their own fields, I interpreted this that this field

is more insular. To the best of my knowledge, out-citations are not analyzed by Clarivate

Analytics (formerly Thomson Reuters) and I am not aware of any academic studies that

included analyses of out-citations.

Categorical attributes of journals

In order to categorize the journals cited by the public administration, political

science, and business management journals (out-citations) and the journals that are citing

53

these fields (in-citations), I used specific categories. I discuss the procedures I used for

these categorizations in this section.

I used the Web of Science subject classifications for the categories and assigned

codes to them. These categories and codes are presented in Table 3.3. An important note

is that there were a number of items that were not indexed by the Web of Science, such as

those journals outside of the Web of Science universe and book chapters and reports (so-

called gray or fugitive literature). I categorized them as “not indexed.” I categorized the

journals with multiple classification headings as interdisciplinary, but made exceptions to

this rule. I coded some of the interdisciplinary journals into their specific

interdisciplinary categories. These are the journals that were more directly related to the

fields I studied (e.g., “public administration and other,” “political science and other, and

“business management”).

54

Table 3.3

Coding for Subject Categories

1. Public Administration

2. Public Administration and Other

3. Public Administration Not Indexed

4. Interdisciplinary Public Administration

and Political Science

5. Political Science

6. Political Science and Other

7. Political Science Not Indexed

8. Business Management

9. Interdisciplinary Business

10. Business and Other

11. Business Not indexed

12. Law

13. Economics

14. Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

15. Communication

16. International Relations

17. Psychology

18. Engineering

19. Computer Science and Information

Systems

20. Health Care, Occupational Health, and

Medical

21. Education

22. Environmental Studies

23. Mathematics and Statistics

24. Criminal Justice

25. Interdisciplinary

26. All Others

27. Not Indexed

The master listing of categorized journals is included as Appendix D (this is a

large appendix with 1,755 entries).

55

Public administration calculations of ties: JPART, PAR, and ARPA

For JPART, I calculated the number of all citations in 2015 for citing or cited

journal references and the percentages that those citations make of the ego network based

upon categorical attributes as shown in Table 3.3. The data are presented in Table 4.5

and 4.6 in the next chapter. The data tables for 2005 and 2010 are included in Appendix

E. In 2015, there are a total of 4242 citations (citing and cited) that form the ego

network, with 204 separate journal connections listed in both citing and cited journals.

There are 2054 incoming ties, and 1808 outgoing ties. 380 self-citations are not included

in the incoming ties. In 2010, there are a total of 2289 citations (citing and cited) that

form with the ego network, with 120 separate journal connections listed in both the citing

and cited journals. There are 822 incoming ties, and 1221 outgoing ties. 246 self-

citations are not included in the incoming ties. In 2005, there are a total of 819 citations

(citing and cited) that form the ego network, with 54 separate sources listed in both the

citing and cited journals. There are 197 incoming ties, and 500 outgoing ties. 122 self-

citations are not included in the calculations in the incoming ties.

For PAR, I calculated the number of all citations in 2015 for citing or cited




E. In 2015, there are a total of 5829 citations (citing and cited) that form the ego


There are 1790 outgoing ties and 3377 incoming ties. 662 self-citations of PAR are not

included in the incoming ties. In 2010, there are 4227 citations (citing and cited) that

56

form the ego network, with 223 separate journal connections listed in both the citing and

cited journals. There are 1830 outgoing ties and 1896 incoming ties. 501 self-citations

of PAR are not included in the incoming ties. In 2005, there are 1468 citations (citing and

cited) that form the ego network, with 86 separate source connections listed in both the

citing and cited journals. There are 620 outgoing ties and 591 incoming ties. 257 self-

citations of PAR are not included in the calculations.

For ARPA, I calculated the number of all citations in 2015 for citing or cited




E. For 2015, there is a total of 1472 citations (citing and cited) that form the ego


There are 941 outgoing ties and 461 incoming ties. 70 self-citations of ARPA are not

included in the incoming ties. For 2010, there is a total of 1003 citations (citing and

cited) that form the ego network, with 72 separate journal connections listed in both


citations of ARPA are not included in the incoming ties. For 2005, there is a total of 297

ties (citing and cited) that form the ego network, with 21 separate journal connections

listed in both the citing and cited journals. There are 228 outgoing ties and 46 incoming

ties. 23 self-citations of ARPA are not included in the incoming ties.

57

Political science calculations of ties: AJPS, APSR, and PANL

For AJPS, I calculated the number of all citations in 2015 for citing or cited




E. For 2015, there are a total of 9314 citations (citing and cited) that form the ego


There are 1819 outgoing ties and 7221 incoming ties. 274 self-citations of AJPS are not

included in the incoming ties. For 2010, there is a total of 5811 citations (citing and

cited) that form the ego network, with 255 separate journal connections listed for both


citations of AJPS are not included in the incoming ties. For 2005, there is a total of 1141

citations (citing and cited) that form the ego network, with 162 separate journal

connections listed for both citing and cited journals. There are 958 outgoing ties and 2497

incoming ties. 183 self-citations of AJPS are not included in the incoming ties.

For APSR, I calculated the number of all citations in 2015 for citing or cited






There are 1109 outgoing ties and 8596 incoming ties. 177 self-citations of APSR are not

included in the incoming ties. For 2010, there are 7188 citations (citing and cited) that

58

form the ego network, with 347 separate journal connections listed in both the citing and

cited journals. There are 932 outgoing ties and 6064 incoming ties. 192 self-citations of

APSR are not included in the incoming ties. For 2005, there are 4408 citations (citing

and cited) that form the ego network, with 204 separate connections listed in both the


citations of APSR are not included in the incoming ties.

For PANL, I calculated the number of all citations in 2015 for citing or cited





network, with 138 separate connections listed in both citing and cited journals. There are

634 outgoing ties and 1203 incoming ties. 114 self-citations of PANL are not included in

the incoming ties. For 2010, there is a total of 1,039 citations (citing and cited) that form

the ego network, with 72 separate, journal (and other source) connections listed in both


citations of PANL are not included in the incoming ties. For 2005, there is a total of 350

citations (citing and cited) that form the ego network, with 30 separate connections listed

in both the citing and cited references. There are 230 outgoing ties and 84 incoming ties.

36 self-citations of PANL are not included in the incoming ties.

59

Business management calculations of ties: AMJ, AMR, and ASQ

For AMJ, I calculated the number of all citations in 2015 for citing or cited




E. For 2015, there is a total of 28,229 citations (citing and cited) that form the ego

network, with 728 separate connections listed in both citing and cited source titles. There

are 4599 outgoing ties and 22,788 incoming ties. 857 self-citations of AMJ are not

included in the incoming ties. For 2010, there is a total of 19,577 citations (citing and

cited) that form the ego network, with 544 separate source connections listed in both

citing and cited journals. There are 3,562 outgoing ties and 15,407 incoming ties. 608

self-citations of AMJ are not included in the incoming ties. For 2005, there is a total of

8,516 citations (citing and cited) that form the ego network, with 275 separate

connections listed in both the citing and cited references. There are 2,141 outgoing ties

and 5,984 incoming ties. 391 self-citations of AMJ are not included in the incoming ties.

For AMR, I calculated the number of all citations in 2015 for citing or cited





network, with 683 separate connections listed in both citing and cited journals. There are

2005 outgoing ties and 19,959 incoming ties. 333 self-citations of AMR are not included

in the incoming ties. For 2010, there are a total of 16,200 citations (citing and cited) that

60

form the ego network, with 492 separate source connections listed in both citing and cited

journals. There are 1722 outgoing ties and 14,231 incoming ties. 247 self-citations of

AMR are not included in the incoming ties. For 2005, there are a total of 7419 citations

(citing and cited) that form the ego network, with 285 separate connections listed in both

the citing and cited references. There are 1699 outgoing ties and 5496 incoming ties. 224

self-citations of AMR are not included in the incoming ties.

For ASQ, I calculated the number of all citations in 2015 for citing or cited





network, with 491 separate connections listed in both citing and cited source titles. There

are 1,029 outgoing ties and 11,714 incoming ties. 168 self-citations of ASQ are not

included in the incoming ties. For 2010, there are a total of 10,745 citations (citing and

cited) that form the ego network, with 397 separate source connections listed in both

citing and cited journals. There are 548 outgoing ties and 10,075 incoming ties. 122 self-

citations of ASQ are not included in the incoming ties. For 2005, there is a total of 6,065

citations (citing and cited) that form the ego network, with 241 separate connections

listed in both the citing and cited references. There are 885 outgoing ties and 4969

incoming ties. 211 self-citations of ASQ are not included in the incoming ties.

61

Measures of heterogeneity and the prestige gap

I used the measures of heterogeneity, or tie dispersion measures, to better

understand the reach of journals across fields. In UCINET, tie dispersions of valued data

are measured with Blau’s measure of heterogeneity (Blau’s H) or Agresti’s Index of

Qualitative Variation (IQV) (Borgatti, et al., 2013, p. 271). Both measure show whether

(and to what degree) alters are distributed evenly across different categories (p. 271).

Blau's measure of heterogeneity is 1 minus the sum of the squares of the proportions of

each value of the categorical variable in ego's network

𝐵𝑙𝑎𝑢′𝑠 𝐻: 1 − ( (1/2)^2 + (1/2)^2) )

IQV serves as a normalized version of Blau’s H (Crossley, et al., 2015; 79; Borgatti, et

al., 2002). This index is equal to Blau index score divided by 1-1/n. I prefer to present

these normalized IQV scores in the results chapter, because there are discrepancies in the

total numbers of citations in the three fields I studied: Political science and business

management journals receive much higher numbers of citations than public

administration journals. These discrepancies affect the Blau’s scores and using these

scores would distort the comparisons of the three fields.

Both Blau’s H and IQV scores vary between 0 and 1. The score of “1” indicates

maximum level of heterogeneity, while “0” indicates the lowest level of heterogeneity

(i.e., total homogeneity). In general, the IQV scores indicate how diverse the “cited

journals” (in-citations) and the “citing journals” (out-citations) are.

The IQV calculations include the measures for “all subjects” and “dichotomized”

measures. In the case of all-subjects, I identified each individual categorical subject area

62

with a code so that all of the categories would be included to sum the squares of the

proportions of each value of the categorical variable in ego's network. For the

dichotomized approach, I classified each ego subject category with a code, such as public

administration or political science, and grouped all other subject categories together as an

“all other” category for the equation.

Higher IQV scores for “cited journals” indicate that the journal was cited by

journals in more diverse fields of study. In other words, higher scores indicate that the

journal was cited by journals in fields other its own field. This could be interpreted that

the journal is more “prestigious” in fields other than its own (e.g., public administration,

political science, or business/management). In other words, the journal is not isolated, or

it is less isolated. The heterogeneity scores of the in-citation scores of the journals in the

three fields can be compared to determine how isolated each field is.

Higher IQV scores for “citing journals” indicate that the journal cited more fields

other than its own field. This could be interpreted that the journal has a wider “reach.” In

other words, the journal is not insular, or it is less insular. The heterogeneity scores of the

out-citation scores of the journals in the three fields can be compared to determine how

insular the field is. The heterogeneity scores (measures of dispersion) for the journals in

my study are presented in the results section. I present specifically the IQV scores. I

calculated these scores based on the defined categories.

Finally, I calculated the sum of the differences in the IQV scores for each journal

in each year. This calculation is done by subtracting the cited journal (in-citation) scores

by the citing journal (out-citation) scores. The sum is the difference between the IQV

scores of the in-degree from the out-degree. This difference, that I identified as the

63

“prestige gap” between the journals, aims to create a measure of impact based upon the

interdisciplinary connections of each journal.

Categorical analyses calculations of ties for the top journals

I classified and counted all of the incoming and outgoing ties, which was

necessary to do in order to generate the IQV scores. These calculations were for the

incoming and outgoing ties for the 3 top journals in each field for the years 2005, 2010,

and 2015. Therefore, there were calculations for 9 journals for 3 separate years, which

ended up establishing 27 ego networks. In addition, each ego network requires a

matching attribute file in UCINET so there were 54 data sets all connected to a Masterfile

of journal titles that were classified based upon the criteria established in this study.

For the top three journals in each field of public administration, political science,

and business management, I counted the number of outgoing ties and incoming ties for

each journal for the years of 2005, 2010, and 2015. The incoming and outgoing ties

came from “all years” of the citing and cited journals. In other words, while an ego

journal for 2015 is selected, such as JPART, the alters were counted for all years, whether

JPART in 2015 was citing a journal from 1999 or was being cited by a journal from

1999. I then calculated the number and the percentages of the ties for each journal

according to discipline. These calculations allow one to see how many ties are flowing to

or from an ego journal based upon discipline. These numbers are then broken down into

percentages so that it is possible to see what percentage of sociology journals, for

64

example, were cited by JPART or cited JPART, in a particular year. Discussions of these

ties will be presented in the results section.

Also, I calculated the ratios of ties for the in-degree and out-degree citations for

“all ties” and for “other” ties. The ratio for all ties is calculated by dividing all the in-

degree by all the out-degree citations for each journal. In other words, the ratio is created

by dividing the measure of the alter journals citing the ego by the measure of the ego

citing the alters. This provides an overall measure of how many citations are going out

from a journal in relation to the number that are coming in. The ratio for “all others” is

calculated by dividing the in-degree by the out-degree for all subjects outside of the ego

journals discipline. This provides an overall measure of how many citations, outside of

the ego journal’s discipline, are going out in relation to coming in.

The ratio of ties can show both the measure to which ties are flowing to/from a

particular journal, and the degree to which journals in a field are receiving

acknowledgment from other fields. These calculations also show change over time for

the journals that that were examined in this study.

Whole Network Analyses

Various measures may be used to characterize whole networks, such as

centralization, cohesion, reciprocity, transitivity, centralization, and core-periphery

indices (Borgatti, et. al., 2013, pp. 149-162). Node centrality, and the family of centrality

concepts, are the most basic concepts of measuring network structure (p. 164). I

65

examined directed networks in my analyses. Directed networks indicate the directional

flows from a citing journal to a cited journal, and vice versa. For the whole network

analyses of the public administration journals, I used the following measures: Bonacich

(beta) power centrality, degree centrality, density, core periphery analyses,

clique/hierarchical clustering analyses, the clustering coefficient, and the Small World

Index. The rationale behind this selection is that these measures will contribute to

eliciting the structure of the whole networks for the purposes of this study.

The routine for creating ego networks and whole networks using InCites Journal

Citation Reports and UCINET is described in Appendix F and Appendix G. The routine

for updating the Masterfile while creating a new network and attribute files with

UCINET and Excel is described in Appendix H. The routine for running analyses in

UCINET for ego network of categorical attributes in described in Appendix I. The

routine for copying, pasting, and formatting from the logs in UCINET into Excel is

described in Appendix J.

The methodological approach to the whole networks analyses here is to begin

with the most fundamental approaches to examining the network, such as centrality,

density, and core-periphery, and then complete the analyses with the measures that will

move forward the theoretical conceptualization of the networks based upon the small

world and scale free network concepts.

As I noted in the literature review chapter, I used the small-world and the scale-

free conceptualizations in my whole network analyses. In order to do this, I first

identified the most prestigious journals in the network based on their degree centrality

scores. Next, I identified the density of the network and the clusters in it. I used

66

Freeman’s degree centrality and Bonacich’s power centrality as measures of centrality in

my analyses of the public administration whole networks. I also conducted measures of

density and core-periphery analyses to determine the structural properties of these

networks. I conducted sub-group analyses to find out if there were cliques within the

whole networks.

To detect small worlds in the networks, if there were any, I conducted

calculations of the clustering coefficient to understand to what extent the network has low

or high levels of density. I also generated calculations of the Small World Index.

To support the conceptualization of the scale-free network concept, the multiple

measures used in the various analyses can provide evidence for how preferential

attachment may explain the popularity of the networks’ two core (central) journals,

JPART and PAR. In this approach, JPART and PAR could be seen as the central hubs of

the network. There are some methodological challenges in identifying scale-free

networks. Nevertheless, based on the multiple network measures I conducted using

UCINET, I observe that preferential attachment, or cumulative distribution advantage,

exists in the whole networks of public administration journal citations and that the

network has two stars (central nodes): JPART and PAR.

Calculations of degree centrality (average, normalized degree, and Bonacich

centrality)

Two key concepts within SNA are the notions of centrality and centralization.

Centrality relates to a node’s position in a network and could be considered as “the

structural importance of a node” (164). Centrality is one of the most widely used

67

concepts in social network analysis. A centrality measure scores each node in the network

in terms of its structural importance. As mentioned, simple measures such as degree,

which looks at how many connections a node has, are local, but most measures use the

whole network to determine the centrality score (Borgatti, et al., 2013, 180).

Centralization, on the other hand, is the attempt to characterize a network as a

whole (Borgatti, et al., 2013, 149). While centrality relates to a node’s importance,

“centralization is a property of a network as a whole. When measured, it is a single

number that characterizes the whole network” (p. 149). The average degree

centralization of a network is calculated by computing the number of ties of each node

and then by averaging those degrees (p. 152).

For the purposes of the whole networks analyses, I calculated centrality measures

for each journal for each year, including degree centrality, normalized degree centrality,

average degree centrality, and Bonacich centrality. While Degree centrality is the

number of a node’s connections to other nodes, normalized degree centrality divides the

nodes centrality score by the maximum number of possible connections, generating

proportion measures with those nodes that have direct ties to the node actor (Knoke &

Yang, 2008, p. 63). Average degree is the arithmetic average of ties each node has

(Borgatti, et al., 2013, p. 152).

Borgatti, et al, (2002) describe the calculations for the centrality measures as

follows:

For non-symmetric data the in-degree of a vertex u is the number of ties received

by u and the out-degree is the number of ties initiated by u. In addition, if the data is

valued then the degrees (in and out) will consist of the sums of the values of the ties. The

68

normalized degree centrality is the degree divided by the maximum possible degree

expressed as a percentage. The normalized values for valued data take (n-1)*max where

max is the maximum value and hence assume that larger values represent stronger ties.

For a given binary network with vertices v1....vn and maximum

degree centrality cmax, the network degree centralization measure is (cmax -

c(vi)) divided by the maximum value possible, where c(vi) is the degree centrality

of vertex vi.

For Bonacich centrality, the formula for the equation is as follows:

“Given an adjacency matrix A, the centrality of vertex i (denoted ci), is given by

ci =Aij(+cj) where and are parameters. The centrality of each vertex is

therefore determined by the centrality of the vertices it is connected to”

(UCINET for Windows Help Contents, 2002).

To measure centrality for directed network data, Borgatti, et al., (2013)

recommend Bonacich (or Beta) centrality as the best approach (p. 177). Since the

networks examined in this dissertation research are directed networks of citations with in-

degree and out-degree measures, Bonacich (or Beta) centrality is used. Beta centrality

can help generalize degree and eigenvector centrality scores in directed networks

(Bonacich, 1987, p. 1170).

As one considers the various measures of centrality, it is useful to consider that

centrality is a “family of concepts”, rather than one particular measure, that allows one to

think about the position of a node in a network (Borgatti, et al., 2013, p. 164).

69

Calculation of density

Density is the number of ties in the network that is expressed as a proportion of

the number of possible ties (Borgatti, et al., 2013, p. 150). Generally, higher density in a

network would indicate that the network is a more cohesive community that effectively

transmits links between the nodes (Kadushin, 2012, p. 29). Care must be taken in

interpreting density measures since generally smaller networks will have higher levels of

density (Borgatti, et al, 2013, p. 151). Acknowledging this point, I did calculate the

densities of the networks for the three different years in order to show whether there was

a dramatic change that could influence the other measures.

Core-periphery and sub-group analyses

While the measures of centrality make differentiations among nodes in degrees,

core- periphery models separate central nodes from others in a network distinctly

(Borgatti et al., 2013, pp. 223-230). In other words, these models partition a network into

two distinct groups: the core and the periphery. In a core-periphery structure, core nodes

are well connected to the other core nodes and clearly separated from the peripheral

nodes.

Within UCINET, there are two different algorithms that are used to measure cores

and peripheries: categorical and continuous. In the case of the categorical approach,

UCINET fits a core-periphery model to the network data to identify which actors belong

in the core and which actors belong in the periphery (Borgatti, et al., 2002). In the case

of the continuous approach, the model fits a core-periphery model to the network to

70

provide an estimate of the “core-ness” or closeness of the core of each actor (Borgatti, et

al., 2002). I conducted each of these operations in UCINET to generate the measures.

Clique analyses and hierarchical clustering

I analyzed cliques in the whole networks to better understand how groups of

journals may have formed in within the networks I analyzed. Running the clique analysis

routine in UCINET generates measures of subgroupings of actors within a network.

What is a clique in terms of academic journals? According to Borgatti, et al.,

(2013), a clique is a subset of actors in which every actor is adjacent to every other actor

in the subset, and it is impossible to add more actors to the grouping without violating the

condition (p. 183). The clique analysis routine in UCINET provides information on the

number of times each pair of actors are in the same clique, as well as a hierarchical

clustering routine based upon the pairings (Borgatti, et al., 2002). The matrix that is

generated is the “clique co-membership matrix”, which is a proximity matrix where

larger values show stronger connections, and a cluster diagram, which is generated by the

hierarchical clustering procedure of the average link method (Borgatti, et. al, 2013, p.

185-186). The analyses of overlaps are based on the automatic analysis proposed by

Freeman (1979). Therefore, for academic journals as a social network, a clique is a

subset of publications that are grouped together, linked by citations, based upon the

number of pairings between journals.

I ran these analyses in order to view the cliques that were created based on the

number of times each pair of nodes (articles) were in the same grouping. The

71

calculations of the clique participation scores allows one to see which journals were in a

certain subgroup.

Small World Index and calculations of clustering coefficient

The small world conceptualization, as described by Watts (2003), reveals a model

of networks in which there is a high level of local clustering, yet any node could reach

another node in only a few steps (p. 81). In a small lattice or graph, one would imagine

that there would be a high level of clustering. In a large lattice or graph, however, it

would be surprising to see high levels of clustering if the distribution was random or

normal. The clustering coefficient then allows one to see a measure of clustering that one

would expect in a small graph (or small world) rather than in a large one. As a measure

of cohesion, the clustering coefficient of a node is “the density of its open neighborhood”

(Borgatti, et. al, 2002). The two clustering coefficient calculations generated by UCINET

include the mean and the weighted overall clustering coefficient. The former is the mean

of the clustering coefficient of all the actors, while the latter is the weighted mean of the

clustering coefficient of all the actors each one weighted by its degree (Borgatti, et., al,

2002). I choose to share the weighted overall clustering coefficient since it takes into

account the degree of a node.

The clustering coefficient, as described by Watts and Strogatz (1998), is a

calculation of the degree to which nodes cluster together (p. 441). In other words, it is a

measure of local density; it shows the extent to which the nearest neighbors in a network

are connected with one another. As noted by Watts (2003), a larger clustering coefficient

72

means that “on average a person’s friends are far more likely to know each other than two

people chosen at random” (p. 77).

UCINET generates a Small World Index as a measure of the small-world

network. The calculation provides a score showing if a certain network is more clustered

than a random network. According to Borgatti (a personal communication in 2018), the

small world index “is a ratio of x/y where x is the extent to which your network is more

clustered than a random network, and y is the extent to which your network has short

paths relative to random networks. If the ratio is much greater than 1, then the network is

said to be a small world network.” In analyzing the small world index, I focused on to

what degree the scores are greater than 1 to determine if the journal citation network

could be said to be characterized as a small world network.

Scale-free network concept

The scale-free network concept has been very popular in network research,

especially in the field of physics. It was popularized by Barabási and Albert (1999), with

their description of the influence of the Power Law. This concept, that a few nodes in a

network will have many more connections than others, has been embraced by many as a

type of “universal organizing principle” in network theory (Klarreich, 2018, p. 2). While

purely random networks do not obey the power law, the idea of real-world networks as

being scale-free and following the Power Law is very common (Broido & Clauset, 2018).

The basic idea of the scale-free network is that success breeds success. Examples

of this can be seen in the research on citation networks, the World Wide Web, and

73

metabolic networks (Albert, 2005; Barabási & Albert, R, 1999; de Solla Price, 1965;

Faloutsos et., al., 1999). De Solla Price (1976), in examining bibliographic networks,

argued that there exists a “cumulative advantage distribution” to explain why highly cited

papers will continue to be cited with great frequency, based on a statistical model (p.

292). In that discussion, although he didn’t describe it as scale-free or Power Law, de

Solla Price concludes that this skew or hyperbolic distribution is a condition that reveals

how citations may be generated based upon the relationship of the success of already

established literature (p. 304-305).

Relevant to this research is the notion that there are limited resources within

journal articles: that there are only so many articles that can be cited and that it only

requires the action of citing journals. More broadly, resources of all kinds are limited and

are not unbounded, such as the fact that a person can only have so many friends or

connections, for example. Borgatti, et al., (2013) notes that there are certain

circumstances of directed networks, such as citation networks, or the “follow” relation on

Twitter, where a resource expenditure is only required from one of the two actors in the

dyadic relationship (p. 259). In these cases, it is the in-degree that follows the power law

for a directed relation (p. 260).

It is necessary to note that recent research by Broido & Clauset (2018) has

brought into question the existence of Power Laws and the scale-free concept in social

networks. They analyzed 1000 network data sets and found that scale-free networks were

rare in real world networks and that the Power Law cannot be shown to be a universal

principle as applied to non-random networks (pp. 1-14). This finding has led to some

debate among network researchers and physicists (Klarreich, 2018, p. 4). These

74

discussions are beyond the scope of this dissertation, but still the concepts of Power Law

and preferential attachment, or what de Solla Price called “cumulative advantage

processes” (1976), appear to be relevant in analyzing the networks of scholarly journals.

Assumptions and Limitations

I applied a series of assumptions in my analyses. They delimited my study and

some of them may be criticized for methodological reasons. I address these assumptions

and their potential criticisms in this section.

Web of Science as the study universe

I relied on the data from the Web of Science universe of journals, and the InCites

Journal Citation Reports database and software that is connected to the Web of Science.

In it, there are approximately 12,000 scholarly journals, technical journals, and

conference proceedings from more than 3,300 publishers from over 60 countries

(Clarivate Analytics, 2018). The sources indexed in the Web of Science include most of

the major scholarly journals. The Journal Citation Reports module allows users to

download data with citing and cited references to the journals indexed in Web of Science.

While the size of the Web of Science universe is large, it does not include every

scholarly journal, technical report, book, or book chapter. Therefore, when I found a

reference to a source that was not indexed, I classified that as a non-indexed source. If I

could identify the subject area of the non-indexed source, I would place it in the category

75

of “business not indexed”, “public administration not indexed”, or “political science not

indexed” as appropriate. For all other non-indexed sources, outside of those subject

areas, I listed them as “not indexed.” While I did include the relevant non-indexed

sources into subject categories, relying solely on the Web of Science universe is a

limitation in that certain journals and other sources are indexed in that database

The limitations of the Web of Science include the limited indexing of conference

proceedings, non-English language sources, and some problems with authors’ names,

including hyphenated names and “foreign” names, especially those with Asian characters

(Harzing, 2013, Section 14.2.1).

Journal Impact Factor

I used the journal impact factor (JIF) as a criterion for selection of the top

journals; and as a measure of prestige to compare with centrality score. The JIF is widely

criticized for a number of deficiencies. In this section, I first describe what JIF is and how

it is calculated. Then I address its criticisms.

The JIF is a score that aims to provide a measure of the “impact” of a journal

based upon the average number of citations of the articles published in the journal in the

previous two years. The journal impact factor may be defined “as the number of citations

in the current JCR year to items published in the previous two years, divided by the total

number of scholarly citable items published in those same two years” (Hubbard &

McVeigh, 2011, p. 134). Table 3.4 provides an example of how JIF is calculated.

76

Table 3.4

Calculation for journal impact factor

A= total cites in 1992

B= 1992 cites to articles published in 1990-91 (this is a subset of

A)

C= number of articles published in 1990-91

D= B/C = 1992 impact factor

adapted from Clarivate Analytics, 2017, The Thomson Reuters’ Impact Factor

Another way to display this ratio (D) is in as follows.

2009 Journal Impact Factor =

(citations in 2009 to items in 2008 + citations in 2009 to items in 2007) / (scholarly

citable items in 2008 + scholarly items in 2007)

(Hubbard & McVeigh, 2011, p. 134)

As a ratio, the JIF includes all citable items in the numerator, such as articles,

editorials, letters, and reviews. In the denominator, only “scholarly citable items” are

included, such as peer-reviewed journal articles. The intention behind this calculation is

to generate an average citation rate per published article (Garfield, 1972, p. 476). By

creating a ratio with the number of citations of that journal in both the numerator and

denominator, an attempt is made to discount the influence of size.

The journal impact factor was originally developed by the Institute for Scientific

Information (ISI). The ISI was created by Eugene Garfield in 1960. The company was

acquired by Thomson Scientific & Healthcare in 1992, later known as Thomson ISI, and

became a part of the Intellectual Property & Science business of the Thomson Reuters

77

company (IGI Global, 2017, p. 1). In October, 2016, the Thomson Reuters Intellectual

Property and Science business was purchased by the Onex Corporation and Baring

Private Equity Asia, creating a new independent company Clarivate Analytics (PR

Newswire, 2016).

There are several criticisms of JIF. Even though there are criticisms, the JIF

remains an important measure that is used to measure academic research across research

communities (Brody, 2013; Garfield & Pudovkin, 2015; Moed, et al., 2012). Therefore, I

argue that it is legitimate to use JIF a criterion for selecting journals to be included in my

study.

Two major the criticisms of JIF concern the two-year citation window it uses and

some statistical problems (Cameron, 2005; Harzing, 2008; Seglen, 1997). If a journal

article is being analyzed for its JIF score in 2007, for example, there would only be

access to literature from 2005 and 2006 to calculate it (Harzing, 2008, note 3). This

approach eliminates all of the other citations from other years in the score. It therefore

favors more recently cited literature as part of the measure. The JIF is further limited by

the coverage of journals for each discipline; books and book chapters are excluded; and

language is limited to primarily English (Cameron, 2005, p. 110).

There are several technical or statistical problems with the way the JIF is

calculated (Harzing, 2008, par. 24; Seglen, 1997, p. 498). Since the JIF is a ratio, it

includes in the denominator, the “number of articles published” or the so-called “source

items” (primary journal articles), while the numerator, as “total number of articles”

includes every single publication, including letters and book reviews, that were cited.

78

This calculation creates the problem that an increase in citations in the numerator are not

matched by the denominator, resulting in the situation that journals with a high number of

letters and reviews (such as Nature) will have inflated JIFs (Harzing, 2008, par. 24;

Seglen, 1997, p. 500). Therefore, if an unscrupulous editor wanted to increase the JIF

score for a journal, for example, publishing more editorials and replies would add to the

numerator of the ratio and artificially raise the score.

While one must acknowledge the deficiencies of JIFs to establish an author’s or

journal’s importance, it should also be noted that it is a widely used measurement of the

quality of academic journals. While acknowledging these problems, in this study I used

the JIF as a perceived measure of prestige.

It should be noted that there are other, and newer, indicators of journal of prestige.

They include the Scimago Journal Ranking, h-index, 5 year JIF, immediacy index,

eigenvector score, and article influence score (Garcia, Rodriguez-Sanchez, & Fedz-

Valdivia, 2012, p. 1017). The Scimago journal ranking is derived from Scopus

(Elsevier), while the other measures are based upon Web of Science data. Since h-index

is an author-level measure, it is not addressed here. Perceptions of prestige based upon

surveys of journal editors have also been conducted by various authors (Bernick &

Krueger 2010; Forrester & Watson, 1994; Vocino & Elliott, 1982, 1984). Colson (1990)

conducted a citation analysis of the journals at the time comparing impact factors to

perceptions of esteem from the surveys of journal prestige. In future studies one or

more of these newer measures may be used.

79

Exclusion of law journals

In his study, Wright (2011) acknowledges law, management, and political science

as foundations of public administration. Also Waldo (1984) argued that administrative

law comprised one of many influences upon the development of public administration (p.

25). I excluded law from my analyses, due to the lack of the citations between public

administration and of law journals. The references to law journals in recent public

administration literature were marginal.

Threshold of citations

A delimitation of my study is the threshold that I established in selecting citations

for the analyses. I did not eliminate any journals for consideration based on the

timeliness of the citing or cited references (such as limiting to the most recent two years

for example). I established a threshold of less than five citations from any source, either

citing or cited, so that I could focus on the most influential sources in my analyses. This

process of setting limits on the number of citations establishes a measure of selection for

those nodes that will be considered most prominent for the purposes of analyzing the

network. The Web of Science itself sets a threshold by not listing a citation that isn’t

cited at least twice.

80

Self-citations

Self-citations are treated differently in the ego-network and whole-network

analyses. In the ego-network analyses, self-citations are counted once as an out-degree

measure. They are excluded from the calculations of in-degree measures. This ensures

that the self-citations of a journal are not double-counted as both incoming and outgoing

ties to itself. (It may be possible in the future to do this study by eliminating self-

citations but I chose to include them since it is very common for journal articles to cite

other journal articles from the same journal title).

In the case of whole networks, however, self-citations are not included in the

centrality, core-periphery, or any other measurements. ‘“The main diagonal, or "self-tie"

of an adjacency matrix is often ignored in network analysis”’ (Hanneman and Riddle,

2005, chapter 5). Therefore, self-ties are excluded in my whole network analyses.

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS

The following section includes the results of my ego-net and whole-network

analyses. I conducted all the analyses using UCINET. The specific routines I used are

described below.

Ego Networks: IQV and Prestige Gap

Research questions for ego network analyses:




fields? To answer this question, I compare the ego-networks of the

citations (in-citations) of the articles published in the top three journals of

public administration, with those of political science and management.

These calculations include heterogeneity measures and ratios.


citations by public administration journals of the journals in other fields

(out-citations)? To answer this question, I compare the ego-networks of

the citations of the articles published in other academic fields by the

82

articles published in the top three journals of public administration, with

those of the top three journals in political science and management. These

calculations include heterogeneity measures and ratios.


journals over time?


journals over time?

To what extent are public administration journals isolated from other fields? To

what extent are public administration journals insular in terms of the citations by public

administration journals of the journals in other fields? To answer these questions, I

measure the heterogeneity of in-degree citations and out-degree citations, to assess to

what extent the cited and citing references are spread across different fields by the

journals. Then I calculated ratios of in-citations and out-citations for each of the top-three

journals in each field (public administration, political science, and business

management).

In the following sections, I present the IQV scores for in-degree and out-degree

citations for public administration, political science, and business management in the

years 2005, 2010, and 2015. As I noted in the methods chapter, IQV scores vary between

0 and 1. The score of “1” indicates maximum level of heterogeneity, while “0” indicates

the lowest level of heterogeneity (i.e., total homogeneity). In general, the IQV scores

83

indicate how diverse the “cited journals” (in-degree) and the “citing journals” (out-

degree) are.

Higher IQV scores for “cited journals” indicate that the journal was cited by

journals in fields other its own field. This could be interpreted as that the journal is more

“prestigious” in fields other than its own (e.g., public administration, or political science,

or business management). In other words, the journal is not isolated, or it is less isolated.

Higher IQV scores for “citing journals” indicate that the journal cited more fields

other than its own field. This could be interpreted that the journal has a wider “reach,” or

that the journal is not insular (or it is less insular). The heterogeneity scores of the out-

citation measures of the journals in the three fields can be compared to determine how

insular the fields may be.

The IQV calculations include the measures for “all subjects” and “dichotomized”

measures. The IQV scores for all subjects indicate how heterogeneous a journal’s

citations are among all the fields included in the Web of Science database. The in-degree

all subject scores indicate to what extent a journal is cited by other journals, including the

ones in its own field. The out-degree all subject scores indicate to what extent a journal

cited other journals, including the ones in its own field. These all subject scores are

valuable in the sense that they provide an indication of the prestige and reach of each

journal.

They do not directly answer my research questions (To what extent are public

administration journals isolated and/or insular?) directly, however. To answer my

questions more fully, I conducted IQV analyses with dichotomized categories. For each

field I studied, I created separate dichotomized categories of journals (i.e., public

84

administration and others, political science and others, and business management and

others). Then I ran IQV analyses for the in-degree and out-degree citations for each

journal for the three years (2005, 2010, and 2015). The intention of dividing the ratios in

this manner is to provide a more complete picture of the calculations for the measures of

dispersion.

Change over time for in-degree measures of dispersion (IQV)

Table 4.1 shows the IQV scores for in-degree citations (cited journals) over time.

The table includes scores for both the all the subjects and the dichotomized measures.

The IQV scores for all subjects of the cited journals reveals the levels of

heterogeneity to which other journals, including that of the journals’ own field, have cited

the journals listed. Among the public administration journals, the in-degree measures for

all subjects of JPART increased from .44 in 2005, to .56 in 2010, to .69 in 2015. In other

words, there was a steady and strong increase of the heterogeneity of journals that were

citing JPART over time. In the case of PAR, there was an increase from .72 in 2005 to

.89 in 2010, but then a decline in 2015, to .79. It is important to note that the sizes of the

IQV scores of PAR are larger than those of JPART. In other words, including the

journals of public administration, a broader range of journals in all fields cited PAR,

compared to the ones that cited JPART, during the period of time I studied. So, one can

conclude, PAR was more prestigious in other fields, compared to JPART, but the prestige

of JPART increased steadily over time. For ARPA, there was a slight increase from .45

85

in 2005 to .57 in 2010, and then a sharper decrease to .48 in 2015. These results may be

interpreted that ARPA lost prestige in other fields in the period I studied.

The Dichotomized IQV scores indicate the prestige of each journal in other fields

(i.e., heterogeneity in terms of a journal’s citations by journals in fields other than the

journal’s own field). Among the public administration journals, the in-degree measures of

JPART increased from .38 in 2005, to .53 in 2010, to .76 in 2015. In other words, there

was a steady and strong increase of the heterogeneity of journals that were citing JPART

over time. In the case of PAR, there was an increase from .79 in 2005 to 1.00 in 2010,

but then a slight decline in 2015, to .93. It is important to note that the sizes of the IQV

scores of PAR are larger than those of JPART. In other words, a broader range of

journals in other fields that cited. PAR, compared to the ones that cited JPART, during

the period of time I studied. So, I can conclude, PAR was more prestigious in other fields,

compared to JPART, but the prestige of JPART increased steadily over time. For ARPA,

there was a slight decline from .77 in 2005 to .72 in 2010, and then a sharper decrease to

.39 in 2015. These results may be interpreted that ARPA lost prestige in other fields in

the period I studied.

Both the all subjects and dichotomized IQV scores of the political science and

business management journals are higher than those of the public administration journals

in the table, on average. In particular, the dichotomized scores show that the journals of

political science and business management are more prestigious in other fields (they are

less isolated; they are cited by “others” more), compared to the journals of public

administration. Particularly the political science journals are the most prestigious overall,

and they became even more so in 2015. But these interpretations should be qualified that

86

PAR and JPART have comparable IQV scores with the journals of business management,

particularly in 2015.

Table 4.1

Measures of Dispersion (IQV) for Cited Journals (In-Degree): 2005, 2010, and 2015

For All Subjects Dichotomized with subject and

all others

2005 2010 2015 2005 2010 2015

Public

Adm

JPART 0.44 0.56 0.69 JPART 0.38 0.53 0.76

PAR 0.72 0.89 0.79 PAR 0.79 1.00 0.93

ARPA 0.45 0.57 0.48 ARPA 0.77 0.72 0.39

Pol Sci AJPS 0.71 0.76 0.80 AJPS 0.81 0.85 0.91

APSR 0.80 0.81 0.85 APSR 0.96 0.94 0.98

PANL 0.34 0.59 0.81 PANL 0.38 0.56 0.96

Bus

Mgmt

AMR 0.75 0.80 0.82 AMR 0.72 0.78 0.80

AMJ 0.74 0.79 0.79 AMJ 0.70 0.78 0.74

ASQ 0.75 0.76 0.77 ASQ 0.80 0.83 0.80

The results in Table 4.1 for all-years shows that of the public administration

journals, PAR was the most prestigious among the journals in other fields (the highest

cited journal IQV score), while ARPA was the least prestigious. In political science,

APSR was the most prestigious among journals from other fields, while POL ANAL was

the least prestigious. In the case of business management, ASQ was the most prestigious.

In comparing the three fields of public administration, political science, and

business management, in terms of the all subject scores in 2015, one can observe that the

three top public administration journals are more insular in terms of the in-citation IQV

scores (PAR at .79, JPART at .69, and ARPA at .48) than the three journals of political

87

science (APSR at .85, PANL at .81, AJPS at .80) or business management (AMR at .82,

AMJ at .79, and ASQ at .77). In terms of the in-citation measures, AMR and APSR

received the most citations across disciplines.

The political science and business management journals are cited more frequently

by other fields than they cite, whereas the public administration journals cite others more

than they are cited. More specifically, the dichotomized heterogeneity scores in Table 4.1

indicate that the three management journals were cited by journals in a wide range of

fields for all the three years analyzed (dichotomized IQV scores between 0.72 and .80),

compared to the public administration journals that varied widely (IQV scores between

0.38 and 1.00). The political science journals for all the years also showed a wider

spread (between 0.38 and 0.98) than business management, but showed overall higher

IQV scores for most years.

Change over time for out-degree measures of dispersion

Table 4.2 shows the IQV scores for out-degree citations (citing journals) over

time. The table includes scores for both all the subjects and the dichotomized scores.

The IQV scores for all subjects of the citing journals reveals the levels of

heterogeneity to which these journals are citing other journals, including those of the

journals’ own field. Among the public administration journals, the out-degree measures

for all subjects of JPART stayed at .90 in 2005 and 2010, and then declined slightly to .89

in 2015. In other words, there was a steady level of heterogeneity of journals that JPART

was citing over time. In the case of PAR, there was a decline from .88 in 2005 to .75 in

88

2010, but then a rise in 2015, to .86. It is important to note that the sizes of the IQV

scores of JPART are larger than those of PAR. In other words, including the journals of

public administration, PAR was citing a broader range of journals, compared to the ones

that cited JPART, during the period of time studied. So, one can conclude, PAR was

more heterogeneous in terms of out-degree citations, compared to JPART. For ARPA,

there was a slight increase from .69 in 2005 to .81 in 2010, and then a sharper decrease to

.75 in 2015. These results may be interpreted that ARPA has a lower level of

heterogeneity in terms of the journals that it is citing.

The Dichotomized IQV scores for out-degree indicate the level of heterogeneity

to which these journals are citing other journals. (i.e., heterogeneity in terms of a

journal’s citations by journals in fields other than the journal’s own field). Among the

public administration journals, the out-degree measures of JPART stayed the same at

1.00 for 2005 and 2010, and then decreased slightly to .97 in 2015. In other words, there

was a strong and steady level of heterogeneity of journals that JPART was citing over

time. In the case of PAR, there was a decline from 1.00 in 2005 to .91 in 2010, but then

an increase in 2015, to .98. It is important to note that the sizes of the IQV scores of

JPART are larger than those of PAR. In other words, JPART is citing a broader range of

journals in other fields than PAR, during the period of time I studied. So, one can

conclude, JPART was reaching out more to other fields, compared to PAR. For ARPA,

there was an increase from .74 in 2005 to .88 in 2010, and then a decrease to .83 in 2015.

These results may be interpreted that ARPA reached out to a less heterogeneous range of

journals than JPART or PAR.

89

Both the all subjects and dichotomized IQV scores of the political science and

business management journals are similar to those of the public administration journals in

the table, on average, with the exception of ARPA having the lowest scores.

Table 4.2

Measures of Dispersion (IQV) for Citing Journals (Out-Degree): 2015, 2010,

2005

For All Subjects Dichotomized with Subject and All

Others

2005 2010 2015 2005 2010 2015

Public

Adm

JPART 0.90 0.90 0.89 JPART 1.00 1.00 0.97

PAR 0.88 0.75 0.86 PAR 1.00 0.91 0.98

ARPA 0.69 0.81 0.75 ARPA 0.74 0.88 0.83

Pol Sci AJPS 0.73 0.77 0.73 AJPS 0.75 0.90 0.91

APSR 0.82 0.78 0.79 APSR 0.98 0.96 0.95

PANL 0.74 0.87 0.76 PANL 0.91 1.00 0.96

Bus

Mgmt

AMR 0.78 0.71 0.69 AMR 0.95 0.89 0.83

AMJ 0.72 0.77 0.76 AMJ 0.81 0.90 0.86

ASQ 0.76 0.68 0.76 ASQ 0.99 0.95 0.95

The scores in the “all subjects” section of table 4.2 show that public

administration journals have larger IQV scores for their out-citations (IQV scores for all

subjects averaging .83) compared to the political science journals (IQV scores for all

subjects averaging .78) and the business management journals (averaging .74). The

public administration journals reached out more to other fields than the political science

or business management journals did.

90

The “dichotomized” section of table 4.2 show that many of the journals come in

on a more equal footing: The IQV scores of the public administration journals

(averaging: .92) are comparable to those of the political science journals (averaging: .92)

and those of the management journals (averaging: .90).

Among the nine journals, based on the all-subjects calculations and the

dichotomized calculations, JPART stands out as the most heterogeneous (or

interdisciplinary): It has the widest reach (highest “out-degree” IQV score). Again,

among the nine journals, ARPA is the most “insular” both in terms of “in-degree” and

“out-degree” IQV scores.

In terms of out-citation IQV scores for all-subjects and dichotomized scores, the

rankings do not change. In the all-subjects calculation for 2015, two of the top three

public administration journals are the most heterogeneous among the nine journals (with

JPART at .89 and PAR at .86). JPART and PAR, therefore, have a wider reach in terms

of citing across disciplinary boundaries. In the case of the dichotomized calculation for

2015, the same two journals are the most heterogeneous among the nine journals as well

(with JPART at .97 and PAR at .98) although they change rank order.

It can be observed in Table 4.2 that among the public administration journals for

all years, JPART has the widest reach (the highest average citing journal IQV score of all

subjects at .90 and dichotomized at .99), while ARPA has the narrowest reach (with the

lowest average citing journal IQV score of all subjects at .74 and dichotomized at .82).

91

Heterogeneity scores and the prestige gap

There are important differences among the public administration, political

science, and business management journals, in their in-citation (in-degree) and the out-

citation (out-degree) IQV scores. The difference scores shown in tables 4.3 and 4.4

further indicate a “prestige gap” between the political science and business management

journals on the one hand, and the public administration journals on the other. The

differences are more pronounced in the calculation of all-subjects when compared to

those of the dichotomized approach.

Table 4.3

Differences between All-Subject In-Citation and Out-Citation Heterogeneity

Scores in 2005, 2010, and 2015

* In citations are citations of the journal by others (alter to ego)

** Out citations are the citations by the journal of others (ego to alter)

2005 2010 2015

In-

citation*

Out-

citation**

Difference

(In – Out)

In-

citation*

Out-

citation**

Difference

(In – Out)

In-

citation*

Out-

citation**

Difference

(In – Out)

Public

Adm

JPART 0.44 0.9 -0.46 0.56 0.9 -0.35 0.69 0.89 -0.2

PAR 0.72 0.88 -0.17 0.89 0.75 0.14 0.79 0.86 -0.07

ARPA 0.45 0.69 -0.24 0.57 0.81 -0.23 0.48 0.75 -0.27

Pol

Sci AJPS 0.71 0.73 -0.02

0.76 0.77 -0.01

0.8 0.73 0.07

APSR 0.8 0.82 -0.02 0.81 0.78 0.02 0.85 0.79 0.06

PANL 0.34 0.74 -0.4 0.59 0.87 -0.28 0.81 0.76 0.05

Bus

Mgmt AMR 0.75 0.78 -0.03

0.8 0.71 0.1

0.82 0.69 0.13

AMJ 0.74 0.72 0.02 0.79 0.77 0.02 0.79 0.76 0.03

ASQ 0.75 0.76 -0.02 0.76 0.68 0.08 0.77 0.76 0.01

92

The differences in the scores in Table 4.3 are noteworthy for the all-subject

calculations, especially for 2010 and 2015. The differences between the in-citations and

out-citations for the public administration journals in 2015 are all negative and larger

(between -0.20 and -0.07) compared to the all positive and smaller scores of the political

science journals (between 0.05 and 0.07) and the business management journals (between

.01 and .13) For 2010, the public administration journals had negative and positive

scores (between -0.35 and 0.14), compared to the smaller negative and positive scores of

the political science journals (between -0.28 and .02) and all the positive scores of the

management journals (between 0.08 and 0.1). For 2005, the differences were less, in that

the public administration journals had all negative scores (between -0.46 and -0.17),

compared to the political science journals which also had negative, but overall higher,

scores (from -.4 to -.02), and the similar scores of management (from -0.02 to -0.03).

The scores in 2005 for all the journals in the three disciplines were all negative

with the exception of AMJ that had a score of 0.02. As noted in Table 4.3, the sum of

differences in the IQV scores between the cited and citing journals for the all the public

administration journals in 2005, 2010 and 2015 were all negative, with the exception of

PAR in 2010 with a score of 0.14.

The difference in scores in Table 4.4 for the dichotomized calculations are mostly

negative for all three fields, with a few exceptions. The differences between the in-

citations and out-citations for the public administration journals in 2015 are all negative

(between -0.5 and -0.43) compared to the smaller scores of the political science journals

(between -0.01 and 0.03) and the business management journals were also negative

93

(between -.03 and -0.15) For 2010, the public administration journals had negative and

positive scores (between -0.47 and 0.09), compared to the smaller negative and positive

scores of the political science journals (between -0.44 and .02) and the tighter range of

the negative scores of the management journals (between -0.11 and -0.12). For 2005, the

public administration journals had negative and positive scores (between -0.61 and 0.03),

compared to the political science journals which also had negative and positive scores,

but overall higher, scores (from -.53 to .06), and the similar scores of business

management (from -0.23 to -0.10).

Table 4.4

Differences between Dichotomized In-Citation and Out-Citation Heterogeneity Scores in

2005, 2010, and 2015

2005 2010 2015

In-

citation

*

Out-

citati

on**

Differenc

e (In –

Out)

In-

citation

*

Out-

citation*

*

Difference

(In – Out)

In-

citation*

Out-

citation

**

Difference

(In – Out)

Public

Adm

JPART 0.381

1.00 -0.61 0.529 1.00

-0.47 0.763

0.97 -0.20

PAR 0.787

1.00 -0.21 1 0.91

0.09 0.933

0.98 -0.05

ARPA 0.771

0.74 0.03 0.721 0.88

-0.16 0.394

0.83 -0.43

Pol Sci AJPS

0.806 0.75 0.06

0.854 0.90

-0.04

0.911 0.91 0.00

APSR 0.957

0.98 -0.03 0.935 0.96

-0.02 0.981

0.95 0.03

PANL 0.383

0.91 -0.53 0.56 1.00

-0.44 0.955

0.96 -0.01

Bus

Mgmt AMR

0.722 0.95 -0.23

0.782 0.89 -0.11

0.801 0.83 -0.03

AMJ 0.703

0.81 -0.10 0.783 0.90

-0.12 0.742

0.86 -0.12

ASQ 0.804

0.99 -0.19 0.825 0.95

-0.12 0.803

0.95 -0.15

94

The all-subject calculations for 2005, 2010 and 2015 indicate that the business

management journals were cited to a greater degree by a diversity of journals than those

of public administration or political science. Political science journals were cited more

frequently, to a moderate degree, by a diversity of fields than that of public

administration.

What does this mean? When analyzing the all-subject calculations for the years

examined, these results indicate that the business management journals were cited by

more journals in other scholarly fields than those in public administration or political

science, especially in 2010 and 2015. Political science journals were cited more

frequently by other fields than public administration, but only to a moderate degree.

The dichotomized calculations for 2005, 2010, and 2015 show a more mixed

picture. Overall, the business management scores, while still negative, are higher than

those for the public administration journals. The dichotomized results show that, unlike

the all-subjects calculations, the political science journals, with the exception of PANL,

were generally cited to a greater degree by a diversity of journals than those of public

administration or of business management.

I can conclude from my findings that there is a prestige gap between the public

administration journals and the political science and business management journals,

based on both the all-subjects and the dichotomized approaches. While the differences

are much more pronounced in the case of the all-subject calculations, the prestige gap is

evident between public administration, on the one hand, and the political science and

business management journals, on the other, especially in the case of ARPA and JPART

in 2015. These results can be interpreted that public administration is isolated in the

95

sense that its journals are cited less by others, but its journals reach out more to other

fields. Public administration is more isolated than insular, compared to political science

and business management.

Ego Networks: Categorical Analyses Calculations of Ties for the Top Journals

The IQV scores indicate how heterogeneous a journal’s in-citations and out-

citations are. The differences between the IQV scores of in-citations and out-citations

show the prestige gaps for the journals, as described in the previous section. Although

IQV scores are good indicators of heterogeneity, they are also quite abstract. To

understand the prestige of the journals in more tangible terms, I calculated the numbers of

citations and their percentages, based on categorical attributes, for each of the nine

journals I analyzed. The results of my analyses with these categorical attributes are

presented in the tables in this section. In this section, I present only the detailed tables for

2015 to illustrate the calculation methods I used. These are Tables 4.5 to 4.10. As

previously mentioned, the detailed tables for 2005 and 2010 are presented in Appendix E.

In Table 4.11 below, I present the ratios of in-citations and out-citations for all the

journals in the three fields.

The sign “+” in the following tables indicates that I combined the journals in

cross-listed categories, if one of the lists was the field of interest to me. For example, the

combined category of “Public Administration +” represents the categories of Public

Administration, Interdisciplinary (Public Administration and Political Science), Public

Administration Not indexed, and Public Administration and Other. For my analytical

96

purposes, the category of “Interdisciplinary (Public Administration and Political

Science)” is included in the category of “Public administration +,” but it is not included

in the category of “Political Science +” in the tables.

Public administration journals in-citations and out-citations

As is shown in Table 4.5, PAR had the lowest percentage of in-citations (62.9%)

from other public administration journals among the three public administration journals

in 2015. PAR also had the largest number of total citations in this year. JPART had

74.4% of its citations from public administration journals. ARPA had the highest

percentage of citations from public administration journals (89%). These results can be

interpreted that PAR had the largest percentage of its in-citations from fields other than

public administration, followed by JART and ARPA. Therefore, PAR had the highest

prestige in other fields, or it was the least isolated journal among the public

administration journals.

97

Table 4.5

Public Administration Journals—In-Citations 2015 (measuring citations of other

journals citing these journals)

JPART PAR ARPA

Incoming ties from Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Public Administration + 1527 0.744 2124 0.629 410 0.89

Other than Public

Administration

Political Science + 94 0.046 160 0.047 5 0.011

Business Management 93 0.045 271 0.08 0 0

Interdisciplinary 30 0.015 50 0.015 0 0

Psychology 0 0 8 0.002 0 0

Sociology 97 0.047 145 0.043 28 0.061

Law 6 0.003 34 0.01 0 0

Economics 7 0.003 42 0.012 0 0

International Relations 10 0.005 6 0.002 0 0

Engineering 7 0.003 10 0.003 0 0

Computer Science and

Information Systems

27 0.013 100 0.03 10 0.022

Health Care, Occupational

Health, and Medical

0 0 62 0.018 0 0

Education 21 0.01 18 0.005 0 0

Environmental Studies 40 0.019 104 0.031 0 0

Communication 6 0.003 8 0.002 0 0

Criminal Justice 5 0.002 5 0.001 0 0

Math & Statistics 0 0 5 0.001 0 0

All Others (not included

in any of the above

categories)

22 0.011 31 0.009 0 0

Not indexed 48 0.023 194 0.057 8 0.017

Total 2040 3377 461

Total of other than public

administration

513 1253 51

98

Table 4.5 also shows that the secondary fields for the in-citations of the three

public administration journals (at least 4% of their total in-citations) were sociology

(JPART, PAR, and ARPA), political science (JPART and PAR), and business

management (PAR).

The results in Table 4.6 show that the three public administration journals cite

other public administration journals at lesser percentages than the percentages of others’

citations of them: JPART 41.1%, PAR 56.3%, and ARPA 70.8%. These percentages

mean that public administration journals reach out to other fields at varying degrees. In

other words, they are “insular” at varying degrees. ARPA is the most insular journal

among the three: A large majority (70.8%) of the articles published in ARPA cite public

administration journals. JPART is the least insular (most outreaching) journal among the

three: only 41.1% of the articles published in JPART cite other public administration

journals. PAR is between the two: 56.3% of the articles published in it cite other public

administration journals. It is normal that every journal cites primarily itself and the other

journals in its own field.

99

Table 4.6

Public Administration Journals—Out-Citations 2015 (measuring citations of

these journals citing other journals)

JPART PAR ARPA

Outgoing ties to Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent


Other than Public

Administration


Business/Management 542 0.3 282 0.157 125 0.132

Interdisciplinary 0 0 0 0 0 0

Psychology 79 0.044 70 0.039 39 0.041

Sociology 77 0.043 100 0.056 22 0.023

Law 29 0.016 15 0.008 5 0.005

Economics 54 0.03 36 0.02 6 0.006

International Relations 0 0 0 0 0 0

Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0


Information Systems

0 0 11 0.006 0 0

Health Care,

Occupational Health, and

Medical

11 0.006 0 0 0 0

Education 0 0 0 0 7 0.007

Environmental Studies 0 0 7 0.004 0 0

Communication 0 0 0 0 0 0

Criminal Justice 0 0 0 0 6 0.006

Math & Statistics 9 0.005 10 0.006 0 0

All Others (not included

in any of the above

categories)

6 0.003 5 0.003 0 0

Not indexed 15 0.008 77 0.043 17 0.018

Total 1808 0.999 1790 1 941 0.997

Total of other than public

administrations

1063 783 275

100

The results in Table 4.6 also show that the following were the “most popular”

other fields for the authors who published in the public administration journals (4% or

more of their citations being to these fields): political science (JPART, PAR, and

ARPA), business management (PAR and ARPA), psychology (JPART and ARPA), and

sociology (PAR and ARPA).

Political science journals in-citations and out-citations

As shown in Table 4.7, APSR has the lowest percentage of in-citations (56.8%)

among the political science journals, despite that it has the largest total number of

citations. PANL has 60.5% of its citations from political science journals and the

percentage for AJPS is 64.9%. These results can be interpreted that APSR had the largest

percentage of its in-citations from fields other than political science, followed by PANL

and AJPS. Therefore, APSR had the highest prestige in other fields and was the most

heterogeneous in terms of cited references.

101

Table 4.7

Political Science Journals—In-Citations 2015 (measuring citations of other


AJPS APSR PANL



Other than Political

Science


Business Management 39 0.006 110 0.014 33 0.027


Psychology 120 0.017 116 0.013 7 0.006

Sociology 356 0.049 516 0.06 42 0.035

Law 370 0.051 368 0.043 44 0.037

Economics 347 0.048 740 0.086 48 0.04

International Relations 299 0.041 524 0.061 83 0.069



Information Systems

17 0.002 21 0.002 6 0.005

Health Care,


Medical

78 0.011 78 0.009 65 0.054

Education 5 0.001 6 0.001 5 0.004

Environmental Studies 33 0.005 81 0.009 13 0.011

Communication 161 0.022 145 0.017 11 0.009

Criminal Justice 80 0.011 41 0.005 11 0.009

Math & Statistics 17 0.002 28 0.003 16 0.013

All Others 83 0.011 153 0.018 5 0.004

Not indexed 93 0.013 133 0.015 32 0.027

Total 7221 0.999 8596 0.999 1203 0.999

Total by others 2534 3708 474

102


political science journals (at least 4% of their total in-citations) were economics (AJPS,

APSR, and PANL) and international relations (AJPS, APSR, and PANL).

The results in Table 4.8 show that the three political science journals cite other

political science journals at similar percentages as the percentages of others’ citations of

them: AJPS 65%, APSR 61.2%, and PANL 59.5%. These percentages mean that

political science journals, like public administration journals, reach out to other fields at

varying degrees. In other words, they are “insular” at varying degrees. AJPS is the most

insular journal among the three: A majority (65%) of the articles published in AJPS cite

political science journals. PANL is the least insular (most outreaching) journal among the

three: 59.5% of the articles published in PANL cite other political science journals.

APSR is between the two: 61.2% of the articles published in it cite other political science

journals. It is normal that every journal cites primarily itself and the other journals in its

own field.

103

Table 4.8

Political Science Journals—Out-Citations 2015 (measuring citations of these

journals citing other journals)

AJPS APSR PANL




Science

Public Administration + 0 0 11 0.01 0 0

Business Management 0 0 0 0 0 0


Psychology 67 0.037 38 0.034 0 0

Sociology 41 0.023 31 0.028 17 0.027

Law 33 0.018 19 0.017 0 0

Economics 259 0.142 122 0.11 60 0.095




Information Systems

0 0 0 0 6 0.009

Health Care,


Medical

11 0.006 0 0 35 0.055

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0


Communication 18 0.01 6 0.005 0 0

Criminal Justice 0 0 0 0 0 0

Math & Statistics 33 0.018 0 0 80 0.126

All Others 0 0 20 0.018 0 0

Not indexed 87 0.048 89 0.08 42 0.066

Total 1819 1 1109 0.999 634 1

Total of others 636 430 257

104


other fields for the authors who published in the political science journals (4% or more of

their citations being to these fields): economics (AJPS, APSR, and PANL), and

international relations (AJPS and APSR).

Business management journals in-citations and out-citations

As shown in Table 4.9, ASQ has the lowest percentage of in-citations (72.2%)

among the business management journals. AMR has 72.3% of its citations from business

management journals and the percentage for AMJ is 75.4%. These results can be

interpreted that ASQ had the largest percentage of its in-citations from fields other than

business management, followed by AMR and AMJ. Therefore, based on these

calculations of percentages, considering that it had fewer incoming citations, ASQ had

the highest prestige in other fields and was the most heterogeneous in terms of cited

references.

105

Table 4.9

Business Management Journals--In-Citations 2015 (measuring citations of other


AMR AMJ ASQ



Other than Business

Management


+

525 0.026 497 0.022 340 0.029

Political Science + 17 0 20 0.001 14 0.001

Interdisciplinary 36 0.002 17 0.001 15 0.001

Psychology 1120 0.056 1513 0.066 501 0.043

Sociology 234 0.012 255 0.011 385 0.033

Law 10 0.001 16 0.001 17 0.001

Economics 300 0.015 259 0.011 136 0.012


Engineering 483 0.024 488 0.021 300 0.026


Information Systems

1234 0.062 1070 0.047 731 0.062

Health Care,

Occupational Health,

and Medical

256 0.013 265 0.012 218 0.019

Education 115 0.006 124 0.005 74 0.006


Communication 91 0.005 72 0.003 52 0.004

Criminal Justice 0 0 15 0.001 14 0.001

Math & Statistics 32 0.002 50 0.002 22 0.002

All Others 86 0.004 70 0.003 67 0.006

Not indexed 645 0.032 533 0.023 267 0.023

Total 19959 1 22788 0.999 11714 1


106


business management journals (at least 4% of their total in-citations) were psychology

(AMR, AMJ, and ASQ), and computer science and information systems (AMR, AMJ,

and ASQ).

The results in Table 4.10 show that the three business management journals cite

other business management journals at slightly lesser percentages as the percentages of

others’ citations of them: AMR 70.8%, AMJ 68.6%, and ASQ 61.4%. These percentages

mean that business management journals, like the other two fields, reach out to other

fields at varying degrees. In other words, they are “insular” at varying degrees. AMR is

the most insular journal among the three: A majority (70.8%) of the articles published in

AMR cite business/management journals. ASQ is the least insular (most outreaching)

journal among the three: 61.4% of the articles published in ASQ cite other business

management journals. AMJ is between the two: 68.6% of the articles published in it cite

other business management journals. It is normal that every journal cites primarily itself

and the other journals in its own field.

107

Table 4.10

Business Management Journals –Out-Citations 2015 (measuring citations of


AMR AMJ ASQ



Other than Business

Management

Public Administration + 12 0.006 17 0.004 0 0

Political Science + 6 0.003 0 0 0 0


Psychology 324 0.162 854 0.186 143 0.139

Sociology 125 0.062 235 0.051 200 0.194

Law 0 0 7 0.002 0 0

Economics 9 0.004 115 0.025 24 0.023

International Relations 0 0 0 0 6 0.006

Engineering 0 0 6 0.001 0 0


Information Systems

0 0 5 0.001 0 0


Health, and Medical

0 0 28 0.006 11 0.011



Communication 53 0.026 0 0 0 0



All Others 0 0 0 0 0 0

Not indexed 47 0.023 144 0.031 8 0.008

Total 2005 0.998 4599 1 1029 1


108


other fields for the authors who published in the business management journals (4% or

more of their citations being to these fields): psychology (AMR, AMJ, and ASQ), and

sociology (AMR, AMJ, and ASQ).

Observations on the citations between public administration, political science, and

business management

The out-citation results in Table 4.6, Table 4.8, and Table 4.10 show that public

administration, political science, and business management journals tend to cite the

journals in their own fields foremost (40-70% for public administration, approximately

60% for political science, and 60-70% for business management). These results indicate

that each field is “insular” somewhat. That is expected, because the members of any

academic field normally cite others in their own field.

Tables 4.5 and 4.6 show that PAR had the lowest percentage of citations (62.9%)

from other public administration journals and the highest percentage from the journals in

other fields in 2015. This result is consistent with PAR’s highest in-citation heterogeneity

score in Table 4.1 for all years. JPART had 74.4% of its citations from public

administration journals in 2015. The percentage for ARPA was 89%. These results are

also consistent with their respective dichotomized heterogeneity scores in Table 4.1. It

should be noted that the total numbers of in-citations and out-citations of PAR are larger

than those of JPART, because of the total numbers of articles published in these journals

(PAR publishes 6 issues a year, whereas JPART publishes only 4). The total numbers of

in-citations and out-citations for ARPA are the lowest. This means that PAR is being

109

cited by more journals outside of public administration across a broad range of

disciplines than JPART or ARPA, including business management (.08 %), political

science (.04 %), sociology (.043%), and computer science/information systems (.03 %).

Similar to public administration, in political science, the percentages of in-

citations from and out-citations to other specific fields are not concentrated in any

specific fields (Tables 4.7 and 4.8). In other words, there is no particular field whose

journals are cited highly frequently by political science journals, nor do the journals of

these other fields cite political science journals highly frequently. Political science

journals are cited most frequently by public administration, law, economics, and

international relations journals, and these percentages vary between 4.1% and 6.9%. It is

noteworthy that the in-citations of the three political science journals by public

administration journals vary between 4.4% and 6.7% as seen in Table 4.7. Public

administration scholars seem to be following political science journals, but not as

frequently as they follow business management.

When the results of the public administration citations in Table 4.5 and Table 4.6

are compared with the political science citations in Table 4.7 and Table 4.8, one can

observe that the interest of public administration researchers in political science journals

is not reciprocated: the percentages of political science journals that cite public

administration journals does not pass .01 percent.

Political science appears to reach out to a select number of fields, particularly to

economics (between 9.5% to 14 %). There are no out-citations to business/management

journals by political science journals. Political science journals reach out to international

relations and economics journals at the highest percentages (between 4.2% to 9.5%).

110

Regarding ties, the incoming citations to business management journals from

public administration journals account for a very low percentage (averaging

approximately 2%). The citations from the political science journals are essentially non-

existent. In terms of outgoing ties, the three business management journals cited virtually

no political science literature in the years studied. Similarly, the citations of public

administration journals by them accounted for fewer than .006 percent of the outgoing

citations.

Clearly public administration looks towards business management scholarship, as

shown in the outgoing citations of public administration journals in Table 4.6, while that

interest is not reciprocated by business management, as shown in the outgoing citations

of business management journals in Table 4.10.

Ratios of ties

I calculated the ratios of ties by dividing the in-degree citations by the out-degree

citations for each journal. The calculations were conducted to include ratios when the

journal subject was included and ratios where the journal subject was excluded. The

rationale here is to obtain an alternative measure of prestige to see the number of citations

that the journal is citing (in-degree) in relation to the number of citations that the journal

is being cited (out-degree). The all-subjects calculations provide an overall picture of the

ratio regarding all of the citations flowing in and those flowing out. The all-others

calculations, by excluding the journal’s subject, provides a picture of the

111

multidisciplinary nature of the journal by seeing the flow of the citations to and from

other disciplines.

As seen in Table 4.11 for both calculations, all of the journals in public

administration have lower ratios than the other journals in political science and business

management for all journals and all years.

Table 4.11

Ratios of Ties: 2005, 2010, and 2015

For all subjects, including

journal’s own discipline

For all others, excluding journal’s own

discipline

2005 2010 2015 2005 2010 2015

Pub

Adm

JPART 0.39 0.67 1.13 JPART 0.08 0.20 0.48

PAR 0.95 1.04 1.89 PAR 0.55 1.48 1.60

ARPA 0.20 0.32 0.49 ARPA 0.21 0.23 0.19

Pol

Sci

AJPS 2.61 3.80 3.97 AJPS 2.92 3.46 3.98

APSR 7.62 6.51 7.75 APSR 6.91 6.14 8.62

PANL 0.37 1.32 1.90 PANL 0.11 0.42 1.84

Bus

Mgmt

AMR 3.23 8.26 9.95 AMR 1.95 6.54 9.45

AMJ 2.79 4.33 4.95 AMJ 2.27 3.35 3.88

ASQ 5.61 18.39 11.38 ASQ 3.48 13.96 8.20

Both ratios show that public administration received less acknowledgement than

the other fields, with the exception of PANL in selected years. In the case of the all-

subjects calculations, Table 4.11 shows that the three public administration journals in

general have ratios lower than 1, with the exceptions of the ratios of PAR in 2010 and

2015, and JPART in 2015. This means that public administrations journals, compared to

the other journals, received fewer citations than those that they are sending out for all

112

fields. For the ratios excluding the subject, this too shows that of the non-subject

citations coming in and coming out of the journals, public administration is being

acknowledged less, with the exception of PANL in 2005 and 2010.

Also noteworthy in Table 4.11 is that the ratios of political science and business

management journals are substantially higher than those of public administration journals

(with the exception of PANL in 2005 and 2010). Two business management journals

(ASQ and AMR) have the highest ratios in the table (13.96 for ASQ in 2010 and 9.45 for

AMR in 2015 for the all-other calculations). These results mean that both political

science and business management journals are highly prestigious among other fields.

Summary of Ego-Network Analyses

In summary, I sought in the ego analyses of my dissertation to answer these

research questions.




fields (in-citations)? These calculations include heterogeneity measures

based upon categorical classification.


citations by public administration journals of the journals in other fields

113

(out-citations)? These calculations include heterogeneity measures based

upon categorical classification.


journals over time (in-citations)?


journals over time (out-citations)?

To answer the what extent are public administration journals isolated from other

fields more specifically as stated in research question (1.a), I compared the ego-networks

of the citations (in-citations) of the articles published in the top three journals of public

administration, with those of political science and management. My findings show that

generally public administration is isolated from other fields, as shown by cited references,

but is not insular from other fields, as shown by citing references.

Among the nine journals, based on the all-subjects calculation and the

dichotomized calculation, JPART stands out as the most heterogeneous (or

interdisciplinary): It has the widest reach (highest “out-degree” IQV score).

To answer research question (1.b) as to what extent are public administration

journals insular in terms of the citations by public administration journals of the journals

in other fields (out-citations), I compared the ego-networks of the citations of the articles

published in other academic fields by the articles published in the top three journals of

public administration, with those of the top three journals in political science and

business management.

114

In terms of out-citation IQV scores for all-subjects and dichotomized, there are

differences in the scores of the measures of heterogeneity but the rankings do not change.

In the all-subjects calculation for 2015, two of the top three public administration journals

are the most heterogeneous among the nine journals (with JPART at .89 and PAR at .86).

JPART and PAR, therefore, have a wider reach in terms of citing across disciplinary

boundaries in that calculation. In the case of the dichotomized calculation for 2015, the

same two journals are the most heterogeneous among the nine journals as well (with

JPART at .97 and PAR at .98) although they change rank order.

Related to the IQV measures, I calculated a prestige gap between the public

administration journals and those of political science and business management as shown

in Table 4.3 for all-subjects and 4.4 for the dichotomized calculations. This is the

difference between the in-citation IQV scores and the out-citation IQV scores. While the

all-subjects approach showed significant differences between public administration and

the other fields, the dichotomized approach showed a less pronounced difference.

The research question 1.c, as to whether there was a change in the degree of

isolation of public administration journals (in-citations) over time, can be best answered

by reviewing the dichotomized IQV scores in Table 4.4. The scores in Table 4.4 indicate

prestige of each journal in other fields (i.e., heterogeneity in terms of a journal’s citations

by journals in fields other than the journal’s own field). Among the public administration

journals, the in-degree measures of JPART increased from .38 in 2005, to .53 in 2010, to

.76 in 2005. In other words, there was a steady and strong increase of the heterogeneity

of journals that were citing JPART over time. In the case of PAR, there was an increase

from .79 in 2005 to 1.00 in 2010, but then a slight decline in 2015, to .93. So, one can

115

conclude, PAR was more prestigious in other fields, compared to JPART, but the prestige

of JPART increased steadily over time. For ARPA, there was a slight decline from .77 in

2005 to .72 in 2010, and then a sharper decrease to .39 in 2015. These results may be

interpreted that ARPA lost prestige in other fields in the period I studied.

The research question 1.d, as to whether there was there a change in the degree of

insularity of public administration journals (out-citations) over time, can be best

answered by reviewing the dichotomized IQV scores in Table 4.4. Among the public

administration journals, the out-degree measures of JPART stated the same at 1.00 for

2005 and 2010, and then decreased slightly to .97 in 2015. In other words, there was a

strong and steady level of heterogeneity of journals that JPART was citing over time. In

the case of PAR, there was a decline from 1.00 in 2005 to .91 in 2010, but then an

increase in 2015, to .98. It is important to note that the sizes of the IQV scores of JPART

are larger than those of PAR. In other words, JPART is citing a broader range of journals

in other fields than PAR, during the period of time I studied. So, one can conclude,

JPART was reaching out more to other fields, compared to PAR. For ARPA, there was

an increase from .74 in 2005 to .88 in 2010, and then a decrease to .83 in 2015. These

results may be interpreted that ARPA reached out to a less heterogeneous range of

journals than JPART or PAR.

As an alternative measure of journal prestige, I also examined the ratios of in-

citations in relation to out-citations. Regarding the changes over time for the ratios of

ties, as seen in Table 4.11, all of the journals in public administration have lower ratios

than the other journals in political science and business management for all journals and

all years (with the exception of PANL in 2005 and 2010), yet the ratios are rising for

116

JPART and PAR, but not for ARPA. This means that JPART and PAR are increasingly

seeing a larger number of citations that are referencing those journals, from both within

the field of public administration, and also outside the field. For ARPA, its ratios are

increasing within the field of public administration, but declining when considering the

fields outside of public administration.

Whole Network and Sub-Group Analyses

In this part of the dissertation I examine the relationships among the public

administration journals using whole network analyses and sub-group analyses of their

citations.

Research questions for whole network analyses:



are as follows.


public administration journal citation network? How did they change

over time? To answer these questions, I apply a series of centrality

measures: degree centrality, normalized degree, and Bonacich degree.



117

questions, I calculated total in-degree scores and measures of density,

including average degree centralization, network density, normalized

average degree, and normalized density.








coefficient and small world index.


these questions, I discuss how the measures used in this research may

provide evidence of this concept.

For the whole network analyses of the public administration journals, I used the

following approaches: degree centrality (including normalized and Bonacich centrality),

density measures (including average degree centralization, network density, normalized

average degree, and normalized density), core-periphery analyses, clique/hierarchical

clustering analyses, the clustering coefficient, and the Small World Index. The rationale

behind this selection is that these measures will contribute to eliciting the structure of the

whole networks for the purposes of this research.

118

As I mentioned in the methods sections, I am approaching the whole network

analysis using the small-world and the scale-free network conceptualizations. In order to

do this, I approach the whole networks analyses with the fundamental measures of nodes

and whole networks. First, I identify the most prestigious journals in the network based

on degree centrality scores. Next, I identify the density of the network and the clusters. I

used Freeman’s degree centrality and Bonacich’s power centrality as measures of

centrality in the public administration whole networks I analyzed. I also conducted

measures of density and core-periphery to determine the structural properties of these

networks. I then conducted sub-group analyses to find out if there were cliques within the

whole networks. Regarding the small world conceptualization, I conducted calculations

of the clustering coefficient to understand to what extent the network has low or high

levels of density. Using UCINET, I also made calculations of the Small World Index. To

support the conceptualization of the scale-free network concept, I propose how these

multiple measures show preferential attachment and may explain the popularity of the

networks’ two core (central) journals: JPART and PAR.

Measures of centrality and changes over time

In order to answer the research question (2.a) of which journals are more central

and which ones are peripheral in the public administration journal citation network, I

apply a series of centrality measures: degree centrality, including average out-degree and

in-degree, normalized degree, Bonacich (beta) degree, and normalized Bonacich (beta)

119

degree. Also I examined how measures of centrality changed over time. Table 4.12

displays degree centrality scores for the out-citations and the in-citations, normalized

degree, beta, and beta normalized for the top ten journals. The full table for all of the

public administration journals is presented in Appendix K.

120

Table 4.12

Degree Centrality Measures and JIF Scores for Out-Citations and In-Citations

for Top Ten Public Administration Journals in 2005, 2010, and 2015

2005

Title Outdeg Indeg nOutdeg nIndeg Beta/

Bonacich

Beta

Normalized

JIF

PAR 121 404 0.055 0.18 149099.84 4.476 1.10

JPART 166 165 0.075 0.08 49924.91 1.499 1.45

ADMIN SOC 135 65 0.061 0.03 22368.64 0.672 0.70

J POLICY ANAL

MANAG

12 97 0.005 0.04 11820.41 0.355 0.86

ARPA 140 34 0.064 0.02 9163.43 0.275 0.62

PUBLIC ADMIN 72 166 0.033 0.08 6433.18 0.193 0.92

POLICY STUD J 109 29 0.05 0.01 5039.02 0.151 0.59

PUBLIC MONEY

MANAGE

35 23 0.016 0.01 1413.12 0.042 0.72

J EUR PUBLIC POLICY 58 26 0.026 0.01 808.78 0.024 0.68

GOVERNANCE 48 63 0.022 0.03 468.89 0.014 1.35

2010


Bonacich

Beta

Normalized

PAR 559 1126 0.072 0.14 357641.59 5.285 1.14

JPART 456 662 0.058 0.09 186847.92 2.761 2.09

ADMIN SOC 410 185 0.053 0.02 57908.40 0.856 0.94

PUBLIC ADMIN 396 344 0.051 0.04 47289.90 0.699 1.29

ARPA 356 173 0.046 0.02 37498.43 0.554 1.00

J POLICY ANAL

MANAG

33 131 0.004 0.02 34177.52 0.505 2.25

REV PUBLIC PERS

ADM

162 116 0.021 0.02 28100.73 0.415 0.89

PUBLIC MANAG REV 328 199 0.042 0.03 26843.63 0.397 1.30

INT PUBLIC MANAG J 261 94 0.033 0.01 22095.84 0.327 1.95

2015


Bonacich

Beta

Normalized

PAR 769 1978 0.05 0.14 599836.19 5.35 2.64

JPART 669 1485 0.05 0.10 423279.66 3.77 3.89

PUBLIC ADMIN 536 760 0.04 0.05 114864.56 1.02 1.92

ARPA 559 382 0.04 0.03 90625.96 0.81 1.26

ADMIN SOC 315 349 0.02 0.02 75565.70 0.67 0.89

INT PUBLIC MANAG J 272 261 0.02 0.02 55987.19 0.50 1.23

PUBLIC MANAG REV 797 379 0.06 0.03 55876.79 0.50 1.87

REV PUBLIC PERS

ADM

251 219 0.02 0.02 45736.43 0.41 1.22

J POLICY ANAL

MANAG

18 200 0.00 0.01 39772.40 0.35 2.79

GOVERNANCE 102 293 0.01 0.02 26698.84 0.24 3.42

121

As noted in Table 4.12, the out-degree and in-degree centrality scores increased

over time as a reflection of the increase of the size of the network. The normalized scores

for the centrality measures standardizes the scores to allow for comparisons across the

measures.

The normalized beta centrality scores of PAR vs. JPART show clearly that PAR

had higher scores for each year, with 4.476 in 2005, 5.285 in 2010, and 5.345 in 2015.

An interesting point is to note is that while JPART had lower beta scores, it is rose

steadily and quicker than PAR. JPART rose from 1.499 in 2005, to 2.761 in 2010, to

3.771 in 2015. This means that PAR, while having a lower JIF score than JPART in each

year, retains a higher beta centrality score. In other words, within the field of public

administration, PAR is more central, as a source that is cited (measured by in-degree

centrality) and as a source that is citing others in the field (measured by out-degree

centrality). However, it is possible that in the future, at this rate of growth, the beta

centrality of JPART may eventually surpass that of PAR

I did not compare the JIF scores to the centrality scores since beta is based on the

bounded network of public administration journals and JIF is an average calculation for

all journals but limited by year. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note the contrasts

between centrality and JIF.

122

Network centralization and density

In order the answer the research question 2.b (how centralized is the overall

structure of the citation network of public administration journals), I calculated the

whole- network calculations of total in-degree scores and measures of density, including

average degree centralization, network density, normalized average degree, and

normalized density. The results reveal that the public administration network is highly

centralized. As I mentioned in the methods section, self-citations of the journals are not

included in the whole network calculations.

The histograms of the in-citations of the public administration journals in 2005,

2010, and 2015 are presented in figures 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. As noted, in-citations measure

citations of other journals citing these journals.

Figure 4.1

Histogram of In-Citations of Public Administration Journals 2005

123

Figure 4.2: Histogram of In-Citations of Public Administration Journals 2010

Figure 4.3: Histogram of In-Citations of Public Administration Journals 2015

124

Figures 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 show that the public administration journal citation

network was highly centralized in the three years I analyzed: A few journals were cited in

much higher frequencies than others. They also show that the degree of centralization of

the network increased over time. PAR was the most frequently cited journal in all three

years and the number of citations it received increased from 404 in 2005 to 1126 in 2010

and to 1978 in 2015. The second most highly cited journal was JPART. Its citations also

increased from 165 in 2005 to 662 in 2010 and to 1485 in 2015. These two journals

became more and more central in the public administration citation network.

The figures of the journal citation networks indicate that a highly and increasingly

centralized network. To verify this observation, I computed a series of other social

network analysis statistics. The measures of average degree centralization and density are

presented in Table 4.13. The table also includes normalized centralization and density

scores. There are various methods of normalizing degree centrality (Butts, 2006). I

calculated the normalized scores by dividing the centralization and density scores by the

number of journals in each year. As I noted in the methods chapter, the number of

journals that were included in the public administration category of the Web of Science

increased over the years. The different numbers of journals in 2005, 2010, and 2015

affect the centralization and density scores and that makes it problematic to compare the

scores. The normalized scores control for the increase in the number of journals over the

years.

125

Table 4.13

Cohesion Measures for Public Administration Network

2005 2010 2015

Average

Degree

Centralization

2.913 5.053 9

Density 0.132 0.137 0.2

Number of

Journals

23 38 46

Normalized

Average

Degree

0.127 0.133 0.196

Normalized

Density

0.006 0.004 0.004

To generate the numbers in Table 4.13, I used the centralization measures for

directed and valued graphs. These included the average degree, which is the average of

the in-degree/out-degree ties. I calculated density, which is the number of ties divided by

the maximum number of ties. I also calculated the normalized scores for average degree

and for density, which is an attempt to re-express the measures by taking into account the

strength of the tie data.

Density is a measure of the cohesion of a network. It is the number of ties in a

network, expressed as a proportion of the possible number of ties (Borgatti et al., 2012, p.

150). Borgatti and his colleagues note that it is better utilized in a comparative way. The

comparisons in Table 4.13 show that the density of the whole network did not change

dramatically in the period I studied: It increased slightly from 0.132 to 0.137 to 0.2.

Borgatti and his colleagues also note that density generally decreases as the size of a

126

network increases. That is why it is important to control for the increase in the size of the

public administration journal citation network. The normalized density scores in the table

show a slight decrease from 0.006 to 0.004 to 0.004 over the years. Therefore, the

density of the network remained quite stable over the time I studied.

Borgatti and his colleagues note that “average degree” is a more intuitive method

of measuring the cohesion of a network. It is the arithmetic average of ties each node has

(p. 152). Table 4.13 shows that there were increases in the average degree centralization

over the years. The average number of citations among the journals in the network

increased over the years. Part of this increase can be attributed to the increase in the

number of journals in the network, but even when the number of journals is controlled,

there is a gradual and systematic increase in the average number of citations. The

increase of normalized average degree centralization from 0.127 to 0.133 to 0.196

indicates that the average number of citations in the network increased steadily over time.

Core-periphery analyses

The density and average degree measures provide some indication of the public

administration journal citation network, but they do not clearly characterize the structure

of the network. To investigate the structure further and to answer research question (2.c)

of what is the core periphery structure and how did it change over time, I conducted core-

periphery analyses in UCINET.

As I mentioned in the methods section, while the measures of centrality make

differentiations among nodes in degrees, the core -- periphery models separate central

127

nodes from others in a network distinctly (Borgatti et al., 2013, pp. 223-230). To state

this in a different way, these models divide a network into two separate groups: the core

and the periphery. In a core-periphery structure, the core nodes are well connected to the

other core nodes and are clearly separated from the peripheral nodes.

There are two different algorithms that are used to measure cores and peripheries

in UCINET: categorical and continuous. In the categorical approach, UCINET fits a

core-periphery model to the network data to identify which actors belong in the core and

which actors belong in the periphery (Borgatti, et al., 2002). In the case of the continuous

approach, the model fits a core-periphery model to the network to provide an estimate of

the “core-ness” or closeness of the core of each actor (Borgatti, et al., 2002). I

conducted each of these operations in UCINET to generate the measures.

The results of these analyses confirm the centrality of PAR and JPART within the

public administration journal citation network for the years I examined. Table 4.14

shows that these two journals were at the core of the network in 2005, together with

Administration and Society (ADMIN SOC). In 2010 and 2015, PAR and JPART

remained in the core of the network, but ADMIN SOC lost its core status.

128

Table. 4.14

Core-Periphery Measures of Public Administration Networks

Year Core Journals Core -

Periphery Fit

Number of

Journals

2005 PAR; JPART;

ADMIN SOC 0.772 23

2010 PAR; JPART 0.856 38

2015 PAR; JPART 0.856 46

To provide more detail regarding the core-periphery structure of the network, I

conducted the continuous core-ness model of the core periphery routine in UCINET.

This routine seeks to identify the most “core” journals within the core-periphery

calculation. This approach, in dividing the core from the periphery, correlates the scores

to an ideal set of scores, in which core members score a value of 1 and periphery

members score a value of O (Borgatti, et al., 2013, p. 229). The results are presented in

Table 4.15. This table includes the top five core journals for each of the years. The full

table is presented in Appendix L.

Table 4.15

Core-ness Measures of Public Administration Journal Network

2005 2010 2015

PAR 0.844 PAR 0.788 PAR 0.679

JPART 0.374 JPART 0.431 JPART 0.524

ADMIN SOC 0.258 ADMIN SOC 0.263 ARPA 0.24

ARPA 0.253 ARPA 0.212 PUBLIC

MANAG

REV

0.231

POLICY STUD J 0.087 PUBLIC

ADMIN

0.171 PUBLIC

ADMIN

0.205

129

As seen in Table 4.15, PAR and JPART were the most core journals in the three

years, with PAR being the most core journal for all the years. It can also be noted that

PAR’s core-ness score declined over time, from 0.844 in 2015, to 0.788 in 2010, to 0.679

in 2015. In the same period, the core-ness scores of JPART increased from 0.374 to 0.431

and to 0.524. While PAR clearly remains the most core journal in public administration,

JPART gained a closer position to being the most core journal. Also notable was the

decline of A&S as a core journal in the field: It core-ness scores declined from 0.258 to

0.263 and to 0.148. The core-ness score of ARPA declined from 0.253 in 2005 to 0.212

in 2010, but then it rose to 0.24 in 2015.

It is notable that ARPA remained in the top four ranked journals for all years

based on the core-ness calculations. While ARPA had many fewer in-citations (Figure

4.1, Figure 4.2, and Figure 4.3), it nevertheless had relatively high scores in the core-

periphery calculations.

Subgroups in the whole network of public administration journal citations

Although it was clear in the histograms of journal citations and the core-periphery

analyses that the public administration journal citation network was highly and

increasingly centralized in the period I studied, I also wanted to explore if there were also

some identifiable sub-groups in the network. To answer the research question (2.d) if

130

there are there subgroups (cliques or factions) in the whole network of public

administration journal citations, I conducted cluster analyses using UCINET.

The cluster analysis routine in UCINET generates hierarchical cluster

dendograms of cliques of actors, or nodes. It is important to note that the formation of a

clique is based on the operation that requires every actor to be adjacent to every other

actor in the subset, and it is impossible to add more actors to the grouping without

violating the condition (Borgatti, et. al, 2013, p. 183). The clique analysis routine in

UCINET runs the number of times each pair of actors are in the same clique, as well as a

hierarchical clustering routine based upon the pairings (Borgatti, et al., 2002).

UCINCET generates the dendogram called “clique co-membership matrix,” which is a

proximity matrix where larger values show stronger connections, and a cluster diagram,

which is generated by the hierarchical clustering procedure of the average link method

(Borgatti, et. al, 2013, pp. 185-186).

The calculations of the clique participation scores allows one to see which

journals were in a certain subgroup. The results of hierarchical clustering analyses

(dendograms) are shown in figures 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6.

131

Figure 4.4. 2005 Hierarchical Clustering Dendogram of Overlap Matrix*

*These journals have special abbreviations listed in Appendix C.

In Figure 4.4, it is evident that there was not a high level of clustering among the

journals in 2005. There are some subgroups in the dendogram, with an emerging cluster

that is formed by three journals: JPART, PAR, and Public Administration (PA_UK) at

level 7. Other journals join this cluster later: The International Review of Administrative

Sciences (IRAS) joins at level 2.25, Governance (GOV) at level 1.8, for example. It is

also worth noting the beginning of another sub-group: the public policy/policy analysis

group. The Journal of Policy Analysis & Management (JPAM) and the Policy Studies

132

Journal (PSJ) join together at level 2.25 and Policy & Politics (PP) and Environmental

Planning C (EPC) at 2.0. This is not yet a cohesive sub-group, however.

In Figure 4.5, one may note the formation of a large cluster that may be

considered the traditional public administration cluster in 2010. This cluster begins with

the joining of the core journals in the field (PAR and JPART) at the level 17.33. It

consists of the following journals: JPART, PA_UK, PAR, and Public Management

Review (PMR). In this figure, one can also observe that the subgroup of the journals of

public policy/policy analysis is more cohesive than it was in 2005. This policy cluster

emerges between the levels 11.5 to 19. One may also note the emergence of another

cluster beginning at level 3 with the journals Environmental Planning C (EPC) and

Journal of European Social Policy (JESP).

133

Figure 4.5. 2010 Hierarchical Clustering Dendogram of Overlap Matrix*


In Figure 4.6, there are three clearly distinguishable clusters of journals in 2015.

Two of these clusters are public policy/policy analysis journals and the third one is what

may be considered the cluster of more traditional public administration journals. The

traditional public administration cluster of JPART, PAR, and PA_UK emerges at the

level 74.33. The first public policy cluster emerges between levels 11.25 and 18,

134

consisting of the Journal of Public Policy (JPP), EPC, GOV, and Policy Studies (PS).

The second policy cluster emerges at level 5.0 and consists of JESP, Journal of European

Public Policy (JEPP), and Policy & Politics (PP).

Figure 4.6. 2015 Hierarchical clustering dendogram of overlap matrix*


How can we characterize the clusters in figures 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6? A summary of

the clustering in 2015 is displayed in Table 4.16. In Table 4.16, cluster 1 includes

journals of public policy and policy analysis. Cluster 2 includes journals of traditional

public administration, including the top three journals examined in the ego-analyses,

135

JPART, PAR, and ARPA. Cluster 3 includes policy journals that are international in

scope. This cluster could be identified as the alternate public policy cluster.

Table 4.16

Clusters of Journals in Public Administration Network in 2015

Cluster 1 ENVIRON PLANN C, GOVERNANCE, J POLICY ANAL MANAG,

J PUBLIC POLICY, POLICY SCI, POLICY STUD J

Cluster 2 ADMIN SOC, ARPA, AUST J PUBL ADMIN, INT PUBLIC MANAG J,

INT REV ADM SCI, JPART, LOCAL GOV STUD, PAR, POLICY SOC,

PUBLIC ADMIN, PUBLIC MANAG REV, PUBLIC MONEY MANAGE

Cluster 3 J EUR PUBLIC POLICY, POLICY POLIT, SOC POLICY ADMIN

The most important observation in the results of clique analyses is that public

policy/policy analysis journals formed an increasingly distinct cluster between 2005 and

2015. It is not surprising that these journals cite each other more, because they share

common sets of theories and research problems and it is highly likely that the researchers

who publish in these journals consider them as belonging to a distinct field of study.

These journals are included in the “public administration” category by the Web of

Science. The core-periphery analyses above could not detect their distinction, because the

audience of these journals is smaller than the audience of public administration and

therefore total numbers of citations of these journals is smaller than those of the top

journals of public administration (PAR and JPART). This is why without the clique

analyses, the public policy/policy analysis journals could not be seen as a distinct

subgroup. It is also noteworthy that this subgroup emerged more distinctly over time; it

was not clearly formed in 2005.

136

The small world concept, the clustering coefficient, and the Small World Index

A small-world network is one where there are cohesive subgroups, showing a

high level of closure, but also high levels of connectivity in which nodes can reach across

the network in an efficient manner, showing short geodesic paths (Robins, 2015, p. 31).

The small world model, also known as the Watts & Strogatz model, is one that may be

defined as having a low average path length and a high clustering coefficient (Borgatti,

et. al., 2013, p. 260). In the small-world conceptualization, “a friend of a friend is also a

friend.”

In applying this concept to the citation networks of the public administration

journals, one can see to what degree many journals attach to the “stars” of the network

(i.e., cite the articles published in them more) and also how certain journals begin to

cluster together based on their mutual connections to a prominent node in the network. I

argue that the citation networks of public administration fit into this conceptualization. In

essence, they are “clumpy” networks with short paths between the nodes.

Different measures may be used to demonstrate the existence of small-world

networks, including the clustering coefficient and the small world index. The clustering

coefficient is a measure of local density. The Small World Index provides a score

showing if a certain network is more clustered than a random network.

The clustering coefficient serves as a measure of cohesion and provides a measure

of the density of the network. As a measure of local density, the clustering coefficient

shows the extent to which the nearest neighbors in a network are connected with one

another. The two clustering coefficient calculations generated by UCINET are the mean

137

and the weighted overall clustering coefficient. The former is the mean of the clustering

coefficient of all the actors, while the latter is the weighted mean of the clustering

coefficient of all the actors each one weighted by its degree (Borgatti, et., al, 2002). I

choose to share the weighted overall clustering coefficient in the table, since it takes into

account the degree of a node.

UCINET generates a small world index as a measure of the small world network.

The calculation provides a score showing if a certain network is more clustered than a

random network. According to Borgatti (personal communication, 2018), the Small

World Index “is a ratio of x/y where x is the extent to which your network is more

clustered than a random network, and y is the extent to which your network has short

paths relative to random networks. If the ratio is much greater than 1, then the network is

said to be a small world network.”

Table 4.17 displays the clustering coefficients and the Small World Index scores

of the public administration journal citation networks in 2005, 2010, and 2015. The

clustering coefficient is similar to the concept of transitivity in that they both measure the

extent to which networks may have high or low levels of clustering. In the case of social

ties, the implication is that two people would be much more likely to be connected to

each other if they have another connection in common (Newman, et. al., 2006, p. 286).

As applied to a citation network, two journals are more likely to be connected to each

other if they have a common journal that they are also connected to. As Table 4.17

displays, the network of journals has high pairing between the nodes and generates higher

clustering coefficient scores. These scores may be seen in Table 4.17 with a clustering

coefficient score of 6.839 in 2005; 11.396 in 2010; and 12.167 in 2015.

138

Table 4.17

Weighted Overall Clustering Coefficients and Small World Indexes for Public

Administration Networks, 2005, 2010, and 2015

Weighted Overall

Clustering Coefficient

Small World Index

Score

2005 Public Administration Network 6.839 5.319



How does one interpret the small world index scores for the public administration

journal network over time? The results in the table can be interpreted by using Borgatti’s

criterion: If the Small World Index is much greater than 1, one could say that the network

possesses the characteristics of a small world. Table 4.17 shows that the Small World

Index score for 2005 was 5.319; it decreased to 4.052 in 2010, and then to 2.883 in 2015.

Based on this trend in the scores, I can say that the public administration journal citation

network became less “small world” over time. While the network became more clustered

and denser, as indicated by the increase in the weighted overall clustering coefficient

scores, the characteristics of the small world decreased. I am unable to explain this

apparent contradiction in the two sets of scores. Further research may help explain it.

139

Scale-free networks

Are the public administration journal citation networks scale free (research

question 2.f)? Since UCINET does not provide specific measures to show if a network is

scale-free (i.e., whether it follows the Power Law), I cannot provide a specific result that

would provide evidence for whether the public administration journal citation networks

in 2005, 2010, and 2015 are scale free or not. However, I argue that the whole network

analyses I conducted suggest the existence of a scale-free network. The distributions of

citations in figures 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 suggest that they are non-random and they are not

normally distributed. These distributions and the analytical results displayed in tables,

particularly the degree centrality scores of journals (Table 4.12) and the core-periphery

analysis results (Table 4.14) indicate that the distributions of the citations are heavily

lopsided and that PAR and JPART are the journals that attract disproportionate numbers

of citations within the network.

De Solla Price (1976) argued that there is a “cumulative advantage distribution”

to explain why highly cited papers will continue to be cited with great frequency, based

upon a statistical model, in examining bibliographic networks (p. 292). In the case of the

public administration journal network, this skewed distribution reveals how citations in

public administration may be generated based on the relationship of the success of

already established literature (pp. 304-305).

Again, it is important to stress that recent research by Broido & Clauset (2018)

has brought into question the existence of Power Laws and the scale-free concept in

social networks. Considering that their research found that scale free networks were rare

140

in real world networks and that the power law cannot be shown to be a universal principle

as applied to non-random networks (pp. 1-14), caution must be given in applying this

concept to citation networks.

Summary of Whole Network Analyses

In this part of the dissertation I examined the relationships among the public

administration journals using whole network analyses and sub-group analyses.

For the whole network analyses of the public administration journals, I used the

following approaches: degree centrality (including normalized and Bonacich centrality),

density measures (including average degree centralization, network density, normalized

average degree, and normalized density), core periphery analyses, clique/hierarchical

clustering analyses, the clustering coefficient, and the small world index. The rationale

behind this selection of measures is that this approach will contribute to eliciting the

structure of the whole networks for the purposes of this research.

The research questions I aimed to answer in this part of the dissertation are as

follows.



are as follows.


public administration journal citation network? How did they change

141

over time? To answer these questions, I apply a series of centrality

measures: degree centrality, normalized degree, and Bonacich degree.



questions, I calculated total in-degree scores and measures of density,

including average degree centralization, network density, normalized

average degree, and normalized density.








coefficient and small world index.


these questions, I discuss how the measures used in this research may

provide evidence of this concept.

I approached the whole network analyses based upon the small world and the

scale free conceptualizations. In order to do this, I analyzed the whole network with the

fundamental measures of nodes and whole networks. First, I identified the most

142

prestigious journals in the network based upon degree centrality scores. Next, I identified

the density of the network and the clusters. I used Freeman’s degree centrality and

Bonacich’s power centrality as measures of centrality in the public administration whole

networks I analyzed. I also conducted measures of density and core -- periphery to

determine the structural properties of these networks. I then conducted sub-group

analyses to find out if there were cliques within the whole networks. Regarding small

world, I conducted calculations of the clustering coefficient to understand to what extent

the network has low or high levels of density. Using UCINET, I also generated

calculations of the small world index. To support the conceptualization of the scale free

network concept, I proposed how these multiple measures show preferential attachment

and may explain the popularity of the networks’ two stars, JPART and PAR. To better

visualize the matrix of journals in the networks, the UNICET whole network matrix

displays are presented in Appendix M.

Regarding research question (2.a) of which journals are more central and which

are more peripheral and how they changed over time, I applied different centrality

measures to identify the most prominent journals. In analyzing the beta centrality scores

of JPART and PAR as seen in Table 4.12, it is clear that PAR had higher scores for each

year, with 4.476 in 2005, 5.285 in 2010, and 5.345 in 2015. PAR therefore can be

viewed as the single most central actor in the public administration journal network over

time. It is interesting to note however, that while JPART has had lower beta scores, it is

rising steadily and quicker than PAR. JPART rose from 1.499 in 2005, to 2.761 in 2010,

to 3.771 in 2015. Therefore, it may be possible that in the future, at this rate of growth,

the beta centrality of JPART may eventually surpass that of PAR. This means that

143

JPART has the potential of becoming the most central journal in the network in the

future, replacing that position that has been held by PAR.

Regarding research question (2.b) of how centralized is the overall structure of the

network and how it changed over time, I calculated the in-citations and measures of

density. My analyses of the in-citations, as displayed in the histograms in Figures 4.1,

4.2, and 4.3, reveals the public administration journal citation network to be highly

centralized. The calculations showed that the degree of centralization of the network

increased over time. PAR is the most frequently cited journal in all three years and the

number of citations it received increased from 404 in 2005 to 1126 in 2010 and to 1978

in 2015. The second most highly cited journal is JPART. Its citations also increased from

165 in 2005 to 662 in 2010 and to 1485 in 2015. These two journals became more and

more central in the public administration citation network.

In terms of research question (2.c) concerning the core-periphery analyses, as

seen in Table 4.14 and 4.15, PAR and JPART were the most core journals in the three

years, with PAR being the most core journal for all the years. It can also be noted that

PAR’s core-ness score declined over time, from 0.844 in 2015, to 0.788 in 2010, to 0.679

in 2015. In the same period, the core-ness scores of JPART increased from 0.374 to 0.431

and to 0.524. Again, similar to the changes in centrality scores, the core-ness measures

show that PAR remains the most core journal, but JPART continues to rise as PAR

slowly declines.

Regarding research question (2.d) if there are subgroups in the network and

whether it changed over time, I conducted clique analyses and hierarchical clustering

analyses. The most significant observation in the results is that public policy/policy

144

analysis journals formed an increasingly distinct cluster between 2005 and 2015. It is

interesting to note that the core-periphery analyses above could not detect their

distinction, because the audience of these journals is smaller than the audience of public

administration and therefore total numbers of citations of these journals is smaller than

those of the top journals of public administration (PAR and JPART). I was able to

observe the formation of the public policy/policy analysis journal as a distinct subgroup

based upon the clique analyses.

Regarding research question (2.e) if the network fits into a small world concept,

the interpretation of the measures for the small world conceptualization shows that the

network does fit into the small world conceptualization. The small world index scores

for the public administration journal network shows that the network possesses

characteristics of a small world. As seen in Table 4.17, the small world index scores for

2005 was 5.319, and then decreased to 4.052 in 2010, and then finally decreased further

to 2.883 in 2015. The small world index scores are steadily decreasing. Based upon

these measures, the network is becoming less random over time based upon the decrease

in the small world index scores. In terms of the weighted overall clustering coefficient,

the changes in score as shown in Table 4.17, from 6.839 in 2005, to 11.396 in 2010, to

12.167 in 2015, appear to show that the amount of clustering is rising over time. The

calculations provide evidence of the small world conceptualization in that a high degree

of clustering is taking place throughout the network.

Regarding research question (2.f) if the network fits into a scale-free network

concept, it is more difficult to provide specific measures that would show how or why

preferential attachment is taking place. I propose that all of the previous analyses

145

conducted here for the whole networks, including the measures of centrality, density,

core-periphery, and cluster analyses, point to the conclusion that the network does fit into

the scale free concept. Since UCINET does not provide specific measures to show if a

network is scale-free, I argue that the various whole network analyses conducted here

point to the existence of a scale-free network based upon the prominence of JPART and

PAR within the network of public administration journals.

The network as a whole appears to show both characteristics of small world and

scale-free conceptualizations. The prominence of JPART and PAR, as shown by the

measures of centrality, density, and core-periphery, present a network in which a few

nodes have many more connections than others. The evidence of the whole network

analyses of the public administration network over time presents evidence that it is

following the scale-free concept and following the Power Law. JPART and PAR appear

to possess the “cumulative advantage distribution” as described by de Solla Price (1976)

in analyzing bibliographic networks.

In conclusion, the whole network analyses conducted here reveals various

characteristics of the public administration journal network. In terms of centrality, the

two central actors, JPART and PAR, are becoming more prominent each year. Regarding

network centralization, the network increasingly became more centralized over time with

increasing number of citations being directed toward JPART and PAR. The core-

periphery analyses confirmed the prestige of JPART and PAR but also showed that

JPART is becoming more prominent over time and could surpass PAR based upon the

level of change. From the clique analyses and hierarchical clustering analyses, a

contrasting picture emerges of a centralized network of traditional public administration,

146

but with two distinct clusters of public policy journals, which became especially evident

in 2010 and 2015. Finally, I argue that the network fits into the small world

conceptualization based upon the small world index and clustering coefficient scores. In

terms of the scale-free network concept, caution must be taken due to the controversy

surrounding its methodology. While acknowledging these questions, I argue that the

network fits into this characterization as well based upon the cumulative evidence of the

whole network analyses presented here.

147

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS

In my dissertation study, my overall aim was to better understand the field of

public administration through examining the dissemination of knowledge through its

scholarly journal citations.

In this research, I investigated the intellectual environment of public

administration with analyses of scholarly journal publishing citation metrics in this field.

The two purposes of this dissertation were to investigate whether public administration is

an isolated and insular field, principally in relation to political science and business

management, and to elicit the citation network structure of public administration journals.

In an earlier study on journal citations in public administration, Wright (2011) found that

research in public administration is largely isolated from the three disciplines that were

believed to be its foundations: law, management, and political science. Using social

network analyses of the citations, I examined the categorical relations between the

citations and the characteristics of the ego networks of the public administration journals.

I sought to verify this finding, provide more details, and examine explanations for the

levels of isolation and insularity.

Using ego network analyses with the software UCINET, I examined the relative

isolation and insularity of the top scholarly journals of public administration, in

comparison to the top journals of two related fields: political science and business

management. To investigate the changes in the ego networks of the journals in these

three fields, I used the journal citations in the Web of Science in three years: 2005, 2010,

and 2015. I calculated the citing and cited references based upon categorical

148

classification. I measured the changes in the ego networks of citations over time using

the Index of Qualitative Variation. The results of my study confirmed Wright’s finding

that public administration is isolated, but my results provided more detail and nuance in

this conclusion.

I also examined the network structure of public administration journals to

determine the relative prestige of the journals, using whole-network analyses, and

conceptualize the network as having characteristics of the small world model and a scale

free network. In my analyses, I used multiple measures for the whole networks, including

degree centrality, Bonacich centrality, core periphery, clique analyses, and the small

world index. The results of the centrality and core-periphery analyses yield a picture of a

centralized network among public administration journals. The clique analyses show that

there are groups among public administration journals and that these groups became more

discernable over time. The results of the clustering coefficient and the Small World Index

support the concept of a small world model but also raise questions. While the scale-free

network, or power law, cannot be shown with empirical evidence, it is surmised that

preferential attachment is taking place based upon the results of the various whole

network analyses.

149

Summary of Findings

In answering the research questions posed in this dissertation, I offered

conceptualizations regarding both the ego and the whole network analyses. Regarding

the ego network analyses, I examined how and why the field of public administration

may be insular or isolated based on the outgoing and incoming citations of the top

journals in the field and those of two related fields. I argued that the rationale for this

insularity and insolation arises from the unique nature of the field and its

intellectual/identity crisis. In the whole network analyses of public administration journal

citations, I analyzed the structure of the networks with multiple whole network

calculations. I offered a conceptualization that the citation networks have both the small-

world and scale-free properties.

Ego network analyses

As I mentioned in the methods section, I approached the ego network analyses

based on the conceptualization of insularity and isolation of the field of public

administration. I argue that the insularity and isolation are caused by the unique nature of

the field and its intellectual/identity crisis.

My findings on the cited references (or incoming ties) show that the top journals

of public administration are isolated from other fields (question 1.a), but they are not

insular from other fields, as the analyses of citing references (or outdoing ties) indicate.

To answer the question to what extent public administration journals are insular

(question 1.b), I calculated the prestige gap between the public administration journals

150

and the journals in political science and business management in terms of their out-

citations.

In answering the question whether there was a change in the degree of isolation of

public administration journals over time (incoming ties) (question 1.c), I noted the high

level of heterogeneity of the journals citing both JPART and PAR. For ARPA, there was

a decline overall. These results may be interpreted that ARPA lost prestige in other fields

in the period I studied, as indicated by the heterogeneity of incoming ties.

In my analyses to answer the question of whether there was there a change in the

degree of insularity of public administration journals over time (out-citations) (question

1.d), I found that there was a strong and steady level of heterogeneity of journals that

both PAR and JPART were citing during the period studied (between .88 and 1.0). For

ARPA, the range varied from .74 to .88. These results may be interpreted that ARPA

reached out to a less heterogeneous range of journals than JPART or PAR.

The changes in the ratios of ties over time, as shown in Table 4.11, indicate that

all the journals in public administration have lower ratios than the journals in political

science and business management with the exception of PANL in selected years. The

ratios rose for JPART and PAR, but not for ARPA. This indicates that the citations of

JPART and PAR by journals both within the field of public administration and outside

the field increased over time. The ratios of ARPA increased within the field of public

administration, but declined from journals outside the field.

151

Whole network analyses

I conducted the whole network analysis to identify whether there were small-

world and scale-free properties in them. To identify small- world properties, I conducted

clustering coefficients and Small World Index calculations.

To answer the question which journals are more central and which are more

peripheral and how they changed over time (question 2.a), I analyzed multiple centrality

measures. The results in Table 4.12 show that PAR can be viewed as the single most

central actor, or node, in the public administration journal network during the period of

time I examined. It is notable that while JPART had lower beta scores, its scores rose

steadily and quicker than those of PAR. It is possible that the beta centrality of JPART

may eventually surpass that of PAR. Then JPART will possibly become the most central

journal in the public administration citation network.

To answer the research question of how centralized is the structure of the network

and how it changed over time (question 2.b), I calculated measures of density. My

findings show that the public administration journal citation network is highly

centralized. PAR is the most frequently cited journal in all the three years and the

number of citations it received increased. The second most highly cited journal is JPART.

Both of these two journals became more and more central in the public administration

citation network over time.

The core-periphery analyses I conducted to answer the question 2.c show that

PAR and JPART were the most core journals in the three years studied, with PAR being

the most core journal for all the years, as seen in Table 4.15. Similar to the changes in

152

the beta centrality scores, the core-ness measures reveal that PAR remains the most core

journal, but JPART continues to rise as PAR slowly declines.

To answer the research question if there are subgroups in the network and

whether it changed over time (question 2.d), I conducted clique analyses and hierarchical

clustering analyses. While the public administration journal citation network is

centralized, there are some clusters in it. The most notable of them is the cluster of the

public policy/policy analysis journals, which became more distinct over time.

The Small World Index scores for the public administration journal network

reveals that the network possesses the properties of a small world (question 2.e).

To answer the research question whether the network fits into a scale-free

network concept (question 2.f), I developed the histograms of citations. I was unable to

conduct more specific analyses. Although my results show that there are scale-free

properties in the public administration journal citation network, more analyses need to be

conducted for more refined results.

Insularity and isolation of public administration through ego network analyses

The concepts of insularity and isolation are mentioned in the discussions of the

ego-network analyses of the top-three public administration journals. I conducted ego

network analyses to generate measures of heterogeneity and ratios of ties to better

understand the linkages between the top journals in public administration with those of

political science and business management. I found that public administration was

indeed isolated but not insular. A notable measure for this research was the differences in

153

sum of the in-degree and the out-degree scores for the citing and the cited journals. I

identified this measure as a “prestige gap” between the public administration journals and

those of political science and business management.

Wright (2011) demonstrated that that research in public administration was

largely isolated from the three disciplines that were believed to be its foundations: law,

management, and political science. In my research, I reached similar conclusions, but

with a higher level of detail. Specifically, In the ego-network analyses, I examined the

connections between public administration journals and the journals of other fields that

reveals the isolation and insularity of the field.

The results of my ego analyses show that public administration is a field that

reaches out to other fields, in terms of citations, but it is not cited with great frequency by

the fields that it cites. For example, it is striking, as shown in Table 4.6 in the out-degree

ties of the public administration journals in 2015, that 30% of JPART’s citations were to

business management and over 13% were to political science. While in the case of PAR

in 2015, over 15% of the citations were to business management and 9.5% were to

political science. In both cases, business management is a field to which public

administration seeks lessons and knowledge, more than from the field of political science.

Yet, as seen in Table 4.8, of the outgoing ties of the political science journals in

2015, there were virtually no citations to public administration, except in the case of

APSR in which 1% of the citations were to public administration. (It should also be

noted however that political science did not cite business management either). Speaking

of business management, as seen in Table 4.12, there were no citations to political

science and virtually no citations to public administration. While the business

154

management journals cited virtually no political science journals, the citations of public

administration by business management were very low, at no less than 1% in the case of

AMR and AMJ, and zero in the case of ASQ.

Eliciting the structure of the public administration citation network through whole

network analyses

In the whole network analyses, I examined the network structure of public

administration journals to determine the relative prestige of the journals and

conceptualized the network as having characteristics of the small world model and a scale

free network. In my analyses, I used multiple measures for the whole networks,

including degree centrality, Bonacich centrality, core periphery, clique analyses, and the

small world index. The results of the centrality and core-periphery analyses reveal a

centralized network among public administration journals. The clique analyses show that

there are groups among public administration journals and that these groups became more

discernable over time. The results of the clustering coefficient and the Small World Index

support the concept of a small world model. While the existence of scale-free networks,

cannot be shown with empirical evidence, I suggest that two journals (PAR and JPART)

receive preferential attachment.

An interesting finding was the contrast in measures of prestige between PAR and

the JPART, the two top journals in the field, as revealed by the beta centrality scores. In

analyzing the beta centrality scores of JPART and PAR as seen in Table 4.12, PAR had

155

higher scores than JPART for each year PAR therefore can be viewed as the single most

central node in the public administration journal network.

The contrast in the IQV scores between PAR and JPART suggest a somewhat

different story. As the in-degree IQV scores in Table 4.1 show, JPART is being

recognized by more journals in other fields. PAR, on the other hand, appears to sustain

an already established reputation. Across other fields, JPART is becoming more

recognized over time.

While beyond the scope of this research, the differences between beta centrality

scores and JIF scores are an interesting finding. PAR had higher beta centrality scores

each year, while JPART had higher impact factor scores. So, in the field of public

administration, PAR may be seen as serving as a type of “publication of record” in that it

is citing older research, beyond the two-year citation window included in the JIF, and it

serves as the most central journal. As it can be seen in Table 4.5, a larger number and

percentage of journals, outside of the field of public administration, particularly business

management, cite PAR with more frequency than JPART. While the journal impact

factors show JPART as having the highest scores in each of the years examined, it is

PAR that is viewed as the most prestigious, or important, journal, both inside and outside

the field. As discussed, this could change as JPART continues to increase its level of

centrality over time.

Another interesting finding is in the hierarchical clustering results of the public

administration journals (Figures 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6). They show that the public

policy/policy analysis journals emerged as subgroups in the public administration

156

network. Future studies may examine ties among the policy journals to better understand

the changing relationship between the public administration journals with other fields.

I believe that the concept of centrality needs to be examined more within the

study of journal citations, as an alternative, or a complement, to the prestige measures of

the JIF. Future research in the use of centrality, and more broadly of SNA, will

contribute to a better understanding of the networks of scholarly journal citations.

Concluding Thoughts

It is clear that the field of public administration exists in a state of conflict in

terms of notions of prestige and as a result of its academic isolation as discussed. Yet the

field continues to look to other disciplines for lessons and data so while it can be

characterized as isolated, it is not insular. I proposed two broad explanations for different

levels of isolation and insularity: the unique nature of the field and the

intellectual/identity crisis of the field of public administration. The unique nature of the

field provides a reason as to why it is not cited by other fields, and as to why it may be

quite insular in terms of citing other fields. The intellectual crisis in the field is another

explanation as to why the field may not be cited since it may not be viewed as a

“scientific” field. As part of this intellectual crisis, the lack of a common identity may

also help to explain the disconnection of public administration from other fields,

particularly business management and political science.

157

Future studies may use ego-network analyses to explore different aspects of the

links between public administration and other specific fields in order to identify trends.

For example, in the case of the linkages between public administration and sociology,

what specific articles are being cited by public administration, and vice versa? What

fields are being ignored by public administration? Also, what are the themes that are

being addressed in terms of the cross-disciplinary citations to/from the field of public

administration?

Future studies may also further analyze the cliques within the field to better

understand the relationship between the fields of public administration and public policy,

particularly, but also among the public administration journals themselves. I found it

interesting that more pronounced cleavages appear over time between the public

administration and the public policy journals.

I hope that this dissertation establishes a foundation to the use of SNA to examine

scholarly citations more generally, and to measure journal impacts in different ways

particularly. The concept of centrality, as an alternative or complementary measure to

the JIF, can provide a new way of viewing journal prestige and impact. The calculations

of the measures of dispersion show the reach of a field beyond its own intellectual or

disciplinary boundaries.

I also hope that my examination of the citations between the journals of public

administration and those of others, and the citation networks within the field of public

administration, will lead to a better understanding of the intellectual traditions and

patterns in the field. It is my hope that this work contributes to the intellectual discourse

158

regarding knowledge dissemination in public administration and throughout the wider

universe of scholarly publishing.

159

REFERENCE LIST

Albert, R. (2005). Scale-free networks in cell biology. Journal of Cell Science,

118, 4947-4957.

Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random

networks. Science, 286(5439), 509-512.

Bernick, E., & Krueger, S. (2010). An assessment of journal quality in public

administration. International Journal of Public Administration, 33(2), 98-106.

Bingham, R. D., & Bowen, W. M. (1994). Mainstream public administration over

time: a topical content analysis of Public Administration Review. Public Administration

Review, 54, 204-208.

Birkland, T.A. (2011). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts,

and models of public policy making (3rd ed.). Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

Blau, P. M., & Meyer, M. W. (1971). Bureaucracy in modern society (2 ed.). New

York: Random House.

Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American

Journal of Sociology, 92(5), 1170-1182.

Borgatti, S. P. (2002). NetDraw: Graph visualization software. Harvard: Analytic

Technologies.

Borgatti, S.P., & Everett, M.G. (1998). Analyzing clique overlap.

CONNECTIONS, 21(1), 49-61.

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M.G., & Freeman, L.C. (2002). UCINET for Windows:

Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies. Harvard,

MA: Analytic Technologies.

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M.G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks.

Los Angeles & London: Sage Publications.

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A

review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45-80.

Bowman, J. S., & Hajjar, S. G. (1978a). English-language journals in public

administration. Public Administration, 56(2), 203-225.

160

Bowman, J. S., & Hajjar, S. G. (1978b). The literature of American public

administration: Its contents and contributors. Public Administration Review, 38(2), 156-

165.

Bozeman, B. (2000). Bureaucracy and red tape. Upper Saddle River, N.J:

Prentice Hall.

Brand, D.R. (2008). The President as chief administrator: James Landis and the

Brownlow Report. Political Science Quarterly, 123(1), 69-93.

Broido, A. D., & Clauset, A. (2018). Scale-free networks are rare. arXiv.

Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03400v1

Brody, S. (2013). Impact factor: Imperfect but not yet replaceable. Scientometrics.

96(1), 255–257.

Burgess, T. F., & Shaw, N. E. (2010). Editorial board membership of

management and business journals: A social network analysis study of the Financial

Times 40. British Journal of Management, 21(3), 627-648.

Butts, C. T. (2006). Exact bounds for degree centralization. Social Networks,

28(4), 283-296.

Cameron, B. D. (2005). Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data: Uses,

abuses, and implications. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5(1), 105-125.

Clarivate Analytics. (2005; 2010; 2015). Journal Citation Reports®. from

Clarivate Analytics.

Clarivate Analytics. (2017a). The Thomson Reuters impact factor. InCites

Journal Citation Reports Help. Retrieved from http://wokinfo.com/essays/impact-factor/

Clarivate Analytics. (2017b). Web of Science all databases help. Retrieved from

http:// webofknowledge.com.

Colson, H. (1990). Citation rankings of public administration journals.

Administration & Society, 21(4), 452-471.

Cooke, L., & Hall, H. (2013). Facets of DREaMA social network analysis:

Exploring network development in the UK LIS research community. Journal of

Documentation, 69(6), 786-806.

Corson, J. J. (1952). Distinguishing characteristics of public administration.

Public Administration Review, 12(2), 120-125.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03400v1

http://wokinfo.com/essays/impact-factor/

http://images.webofknowledge.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/WOKRS5251R3/help/WOK/hp_database.html#dsy368-TRS_social_sciences

161

Cox, R. W., Buck, S. J., & Morgan, B. N. (2011). Public administration in theory

and practice (Vol. 2nd). Boston: Longman.

Crossley, N., Bellotti, E., Edwards, G., Everett, M. G., Koskinen, J., & Tranmer,

M. (2015). Social network analysis for ego-nets. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

de Lancer Julnes, P., & Holzer, M. (2001). Promoting the utilization of

performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting

adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review, 61(6), 693-708.

de Lancer Julnes, P. (2015). Performance measurement. In D. Bearfield (Ed.)

Encyclopedia of public administration & public policy, (3rd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC

Press.

de Solla Price, D.J. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149(3683),

510-515.

de Solla Price, D.J. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative

advantage processes. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,

27(5), 292-306.

Durant, R. F., & Ali, S. B. (2013). Repositioning American public administration?

Citizen estrangement, administrative reform, and the disarticulated state. Public

Administration Review, 73(2), 278-289.

Faloutsos, M., & Faloutsos, P., & Faloutsos, C. (1999). On power-law

relationships of the internet topology. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication

Review. 29(4), 251-262.

Fischer, F. (2007). Deliberative policy analysis as practical reason: Integrating

empirical and normative arguments. In F. Fischer, G. Miller & M. S. Sidney

(Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics, and methods (Vol. 125).

Boca Raton: CRC/Taylor & Francis.

Fitch, L.C. (1990). Luther Gulick. Public Administration Review, 50(6), 604-

608.

Forrester, J. P., & Watson, S. S. (1994). An assessment of public administration

journals: The perspective of editors and editorial board members. Public Administration

Review, 54(5), 474.

Freeman, L. C. (2004). The development of social network analysis: A study in the

sociology of science. North Charleston, S.C; Vancouver, BC; Empirical Press.

162

Fry, B. R., & Raadschelders, J. (1989). Mastering public administration: From

Max Weber to Dwight Waldo. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House Publishers.

García, J. A., Rodriguez-Sánchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2012). Scientific

subject categories of Web of Knowledge ranked according to their multidimensional

prestige of influential journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science

and Technology, 63(5), 1017.

Garfield, E. (1965). Can citation indexing be automated? Paper presented at the

Statistical Association Methods for Mechanized Documentation, Symposium

Proceedings., Washington, DC.

Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science,

178(4060), 471-479.

Garfield, E., & Pudovkin, A. (2015). Journal impact factor strongly correlates

with the citedness of the median journal paper. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and

Information Management, 9(1), 5-14.

Gollagher, M., & Hartz-Karp, J. (2013). The role of deliberative collaborative

governance in achieving sustainable cities. Sustainability, 5(6), 2343-2366.

Gulick, L., & Urwick, L. (1937). Papers on the science of administration. New

York: Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University.

Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods.

Retrieved from http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/

Harmon, M. M. (1989). The Simon/Waldo debate: A review and update. Public

Administration Quarterly, 12(4), 437-451.

Harzing, A.-W. (2013). The public or perish book. Retrieved from

https://harzing.com/popbook/index.htm.

Harzing, A.-W., & van der Wal, R. (2008). Comparing the Google Scholar h-

index with the ISI journal impact factor. Retrieved from

http://www.harzing.com/h_indexjournals.htm

Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: an approach and technique

for the study of information exchange. Paper presented at the 1996 ALISE Conference.

Hubbard, S. C., & McVeigh, M. E. (2011). Casting a wide net: The journal impact

factor numerator. Learned Publishing, 24(2), 133-137.

http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/

163

Hövermann, A., Groß, E. M., & Messner, S. F. (2016). Institutional imbalance,

integration into non-economic institutions, and a marketized mentality in

Europe. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 57(4), 231-254.

IGI Global. (2017). What is the Institute for Scientific Information? Retrieved

from https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/institute-for-scientific-information-isi/43723

Kadushin, C. (2012). Understanding social networks: Theories, concepts, and

findings. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kettl, D. F. (2000). Public administration at the millennium: The state of the

field. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(1), 7-34.

Klarreich, E. (2018). Scant evidence of power laws found in real-world

networks. Quantamagazine. Retrieved from https://www.quantamagazine.org/

Knoke, D., & Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis (2nd ed.). Los Angeles;

London: Sage.

Lane, L. M., & Wamsley, G. L. (1998). Gulick and the American presidency:

Vision, reality, and consequences. International Journal of Public Administration, 21(2-

4), 375.

Landis, J. (1938). The administrative process. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press.

Lin, T. M.Y., & Liao, C.-W. (2008). Knowledge dissemination of word-of-mouth

research: Citation analysis and social network analysis. Libri: International Journal of

Libraries & Information Services, 58(4), 212-223.

Lynch, T. D., & Day, S. E. (1996). Public sector performance measurement.

Public Administration Quarterly, 19(4), 404-419.

Lynn, L. E. (2001). The myth of the bureaucratic paradigm: What traditional

public administration really stood for. Public Administration Review, 61(2), 144-160.

Mettler, S., & Sorelle, M. (2014). Policy feedback theory. In P. A. Sabatier & C.

Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3 ed., pp. 151-181). Boulder: Westview.

Milgram, S. (1967). The small world problem. Psychology Today, 61-67.

McNab, R. M., & Melese, F. (2003). Implementing the GPRA: Examining the

prospects for performance budgeting in the federal government. Public Budgeting &

Finance, 23(2), 73-95.

https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/institute-for-scientific-information-isi/43723

https://www.quantamagazine.org/

164

Moed, H. F., Colledge, L., Reedijk, J., Moya-Anegon, F., Guerrero-Bote, V.,

Plume, A., Amin, M. (2012). Citation-based metrics are appropriate tools in journal

assessment provided that they are accurate and used in an informed way. Scientometrics,

92(2), 367–376.

Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of

human interrelations. Washington, D.C.: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co.

Morçöl, G. (2014). From public policy analysis to complex governance networks

studies. Public policymaking in a globalized world. Istanbul, Turkey: Istanbul Policy

Center.

Mosher, F. C. (1982). Democracy and the public service (2nd ed.). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Moynihan, D. P. (2006). Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a

decade of reform. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 77-89.

Newland, C. A. (1994). Foreword: Research ideals and realities. In J. D. White &

G. B. Adams (Eds.), Research in public administration: reflections on theory and

practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Newman, M. E. J., Barabási, A.-L., & Watts, D. J. (2006). The structure and

dynamics of networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ni, C., Sugimoto, C. R., & Robbin, A. (2017). Examining the evolution of the

field of public administration through a bibliometric analysis of Public Administration

Review. Public Administration Review, 77(4), 496-509.

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the

entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York, NY.: Plume.

Ostrom, V. (1989). The intellectual crisis in American public administration (2nd

ed.). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Pesch, U. (2008). The publicness of public administration. Administration &

Society, 40(2), 170–193.

Piotrowski, S. J., & Rosenbloom, D. H. (2002). Nonmission-based values in

results-oriented public management: The case of freedom of information. Public


Poister, T. H. (2003). Measuring performance in public and nonprofit

organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

165

Pollitt, C. (2010). Envisioning public administration as a scholarly field in

2020. Public Administration Review, 70((Supp.)), 292-294.

Posner, P.L. (2007). The Continuity of change: Public budgeting and finance

reforms over 70 years. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1018-29.

PR Newswire. (2016). Acquisition of the Thomson Reuters Intellectual Property

and Science Business by Onex and Baring Asia completed. PR Newswire. Retrieved

from http://www.prnewswire.com/

Public Management Research Association. (2017). PMRA home page. Retrieved

from https://pmranet.org/

Raadschelders, J. (2011). The future of the study of public administration:

Embedding research object and methodology in epistemology and ontology. Public


Raadschelders, J., & Lee, K.-H. (2011). Trends in the study of public

administration: Empirical and qualitative observations from Public Administration

Review, 2000-2009. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 19-33.

Radin, B. A. (1997). The evolution of the policy analysis field: From conversation

to conversations. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16(2), 204-218.

Radin, B. A. (2000). The Government Performance and Results Act and the

tradition of federal management reform: Square pegs in round holes? Journal of Public

Administration Research & Theory, 10(1), 111-135.

Radin, B. A. (2013). Beyond Machiavelli: Policy analysis reaches midlife (2nd

ed.). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Riccucci, N. M. (2010). Envisioning public administration as a scholarly field in

2020. Public Administration Review, 70((Supp.)), 304-306.

Riccucci, N.M. (2010). Public administration: Traditions of inquiry and

philosophies of knowledge. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Robins, G. (2015). Doing social network research: network-based research

design for social scientists. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Ltd.

Rosenbloom, D. H. (1983). Public administrative theory and the separation of

powers. Public Administration Review, 43(3), 219-227.

Rosenbloom, D. H. (1993). Editorial: Have an administrative Rx? Don't forget the

politics. Public Administration Review, 53(6), 503-507.

http://www.prnewswire.com/

https://pmranet.org/

166

Rosenbloom, D. H. (2008). The politics-administration dichotomy in US

historical context. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 57-60.

Rosenbloom, D. H. (2013). Reflections on "public administrative theory and the

separation of powers.” American Review of Public Administration, 43(4), 381-396.

Rosenbloom, D. H., & Kravchuk, R. (2005). Public administration:

Understanding management, politics, and law in the public sector. New York; Montreal:

McGraw-Hill.

Rosenbloom, D. H., & Naff, K. C. (2010). The status of law in contemporary

public administrative literature, education, and practice. In R. O'Leary, et al. (Ed.), The

future of public administration around the world: The Minnowbrook perspective (pp.

211-220). Washington D.C: Georgetown University Press.

Rosenbloom, D. H., O'Leary, R., & Chanin, J. (2010). The future of public

administration and law in 2020. Public Administration Review, 70((Supp.)), 314-316.

Rosenbloom, D. H., & Rosenbloom, D. D. (1998). Public administration:

understanding management, politics, and law in the public sector (4th ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Sayre, W. S. (1958). Premises of public administration: Past and emerging. Public


Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for

evaluating research. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 498-502.

Serials Solutions. (2017). Ulrich's Web Database. Retrieved 8/28/17

Simon, H. A. (1946). The proverbs of administration. Public Administration

Review, 6(1), 53-67.

Simon, H.A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making

processes in administrative organization (1st ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment.

Psychological Review, 63(2), 129-138.

Simon, H.A., & Drucker, P.F. & Waldo, D. (1952). Development of theory of

democratic administration: Replies and comments. American Political Science Review,

46(2), 494-503.

167

Stillman, R. (2015). Dwight Waldo. In D. E. Bearfield & M. Dubnick

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of public administration and public policy (3rd ed.) (pp. 3334-3349).

New York: Routledge.

Stillman, R. J., & Raadschelders, J. C. N. (2011). Editorial report on Public

Administration Review, 2006-2011. Public Administration Review, 71(6), 925-930.

Stivers, C., & Hummel, R. P. (2007). Personnel management: Politics,

administration, and a passion for anonymity. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1010-

1017.

Terry, L. D. (2000). Public Administration Review: Sixty years of strengthening

and preserving democracy. Public Administration Review, 60(1), 2-4.

Terry, L. D. (2005). Reflections and assessment: Public Administration Review,

2000-05. Public Administration Review, 65(6), 643-645.

Terry, L. D. (2005). The thinning of administrative institutions in the hollow

state. Administration & Society, 37(4), 426-444.

Thompson, F. J., & Riccucci, N. M. (1998). Reinventing government. Annual

Review of Political Science, 1(1), 231-257.

Vocino, T., & Elliott, R. H. (1984). Research note: Public administration journal

prestige: A time series analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 43-51.

Waldo, D. (1968). Public administration. Journal of Politics, 30(2), 443-479.

Waldo, D. (1984). The administrative state: a study of the political theory of

American public administration (2nd ed.). New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers.

Wamsley, G. L., & Dudley, L. S. (1998). From reorganizing to reinventing: Sixty

years and we still don't get it. International Journal of Public Administration, 21(2-4).

Watts, D. J. (2003). Six degrees: The science of a connected age (1st ed.). New

York: W.W. Norton.

Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of 'small-world'

networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440-442.

Weimer, D., & Vining, A. R. (2005). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (4th

ed.).

West, J. P. (2010). Thirty years of ROPPA: Past trends and future prospects.

Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30(1), 5-19.

168

Wholey, J. S. (1999). Performance-based management: Responding to the

challenges. Public Productivity & Management Review, 22(3), 288-307.

Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2),

197-222.

Wright, B. E. (2011). Public Administration as an interdisciplinary field:

Assessing its relationship with the fields of law, management, and political

science. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 96-101.

169

APPENDICES

Appendix A:

Coding Based on Web of Science Subject Taxonomy

Table. Coding for subject categories

1: Public Administration

2. Public Administration and Other

3: Public Administration Not Indexed

4. Interdisciplinary Public Administration and Political

Science

5. Political Science

6. Political Science and Other

7. Political Science Not Indexed

8. Management

9. Interdisciplinary Business

10. Business and Other

11. Economics

12. Law

13. Interdisciplinary

14. All Others

15. Not Indexed

16. Sociology

17. Communication

18. International Relations

19. Psychology

20. Engineering

21. Business Not indexed

22. Computer Science and Information Systems

23. Health Care, Occupational Health, and Medical

24. Education

25. Environmental Studies

26. Mathematics and Statistics

27. Criminal Justice

170

Appendix B: Taxonomy Criteria Based upon Web of Science Classification (Numbers

in parentheses relate to UCINET coding)

Public Admin (1-4): Titles (journals or other sources) classified as “public

administration” (PA) include those titles with that single subject classification, coded as

(1). Titles classified as “public administration and other” include those titles with the

classification of public administration, plus one to three other non-political science

classifications, including the subjects “planning and development,” “social work,” and

“environmental studies,” coded as (2). Titles classified as “public administration not

indexed” includes the titles that are clearly PA journals or sources, but are not indexed

within the WOS citations indexes, and therefore do not have an impact factor, coded as

(3). This does not include books, chapter, or government reports unless they are

specifically public-administration related. Journals classified as “interdisciplinary public

administration and political science” include all journals that have the combined

classification, including three journals, LOCAL GOV STUD; REGUL GOV; and SCI

PUBL POLICY, that have three classifications, but include PA and PS, coded as (4).

Political Science (5-7): Political science (PS) with one subject class is coded as (5). The

subject classification “political science and other” (6) includes journals that have the PS

classification along with 1-2 other non-PA classifications, such as “international

relations,” “sociology,” or “communication.” While there is another classification for

international relations, all dual classed journals will be included here, such as INT

SECURITY and INT STUD QUART. The classification “political science not indexed”

(7) includes journals that are clearly PS journals, but are not indexed within the WOS

171

citation indexes, and therefore do not have an impact factor. This does not include books,

chapter, or government reports unless they are specifically political science related.

Management and Business (8-10 & 21): The classification of “management” (8)

includes just those titles with the single categorization of that subject, or with the

classification of that subject with “business” or “education” related subject headings that

include “management.” It includes journals that have the subject classification of

“business” and of “management.” It also includes journals that have those two

classifications, or the single classification of “management,” along with one additional

business classification such as “finance.” The classification of “interdisciplinary

business” (9) includes all titles with a business classification, and another non-

management classification, such as “ethics” and “psychology.” This includes journals

with the dual subject classification of “business, finance” and “economics.” It includes

the subject heading “industrial relations and labor.” This also includes all titles with a

subject classification of “hospitality, leisure, sport & tourism.” The category of “business

and other” (10) includes titles with the single classification of “business,” along with

other journals that have the single classification of “business” or a related business

classification such as “business finance.” The classification of “business not indexed”

(21) includes all of the documents that are related to business but not indexed in the

WOS. The “business not indexed” classification includes titles that are clearly business

journals, but are not indexed within the WOS citation indexes, and therefore do not have

an impact factor. This does not include books, chapter, or government reports unless

they are specifically business related.

172

Economics (11): The classification of “economics” (11) is for just those titles with that

single category, or for journals with that category and another unclassified category, such

as “planning and development” and “urban studies.” Any title with this subject combined

with a “business” subject, is classified in “business and other.”

Law (12): The classification of “law” is (12) is for those titles with that single

classification and without any additional criteria.

Interdisciplinary (13): All multiple codes not included in the taxonomy are identified as

“interdisciplinary.” The two journals that had both the classes of “law” and “economics”

are classified as “interdisciplinary.” Any title that has the subject heading of

“interdisciplinary” or “multidisciplinary” is included in the classification. Any journal

that has two or more subjects not part of other classifications here is included, such as

“environmental sciences” and “energy and fuels.” In addition, “family studies” and

“social work” are included here. Other WOS subjects in the classification include: “area

studies,” “cultural studies,” “multidisciplinary sciences, and “interdisciplinary social

sciences.”

All Others (14): The code for “all others” is (14). These journals include those items

with the single classifications found in all of the other journals in the WOS and not part

of other classified items listed in this taxonomy. This includes the items with subject

headings such as “social work,” “ethics,” and “planning and evaluation.”

Not indexed (15): The code for “not indexed” is (15). These journals and other items are

not indexed within the WOS citation indexes, and therefore do not have an impact factor.

This includes the items identified as “non-traditional” that includes books, book chapters,

173

and various types of reports, including government reports. Non-indexed, conference

proceedings, regardless of subject area, are included here. From this classification, items

that were either public administration, political science, or business management were re-

classified into the subject classes described above.

Sociology and interdisciplinary social sciences (16): This code includes all of the titles

with that single subject classification, as well as all journals with that classification, and

another classification or another field outside of the currently classified fields. This

classification also includes anthropology. For this study, all journals that include the

classification of “management” are in the “management” category.

Communication and interdisciplinary communication (17): This code includes all

titles with the single subject classification as well as all journals with this classification

and other multiple classifications.

International relations and interdisciplinary international relations (18): This

classification includes any title with this subject classification.

Psychology (19): This code is used for all of those titles with the single classification of a

discipline in psychology, such as “social psychology,” and “applied psychology,” or

journals with multiple classifications of “psychology” and another behavioral science

field, or another field outside of the currently classified fields. All psychology journals

with a dual business related classification with a business classification, such as J APPL

PSYCHOL and LEADERSHIP QUART, are classified in the “interdisciplinary business”

category.

174

Engineering (20): This code is used for all titles with that classification, including

“industrial engineering” and all of the other fields that include “engineering” and another

non-management subject heading.

Computer Science and Information Systems (22): This code includes all titles with

that subject classification, single or multiple. This code includes all “computer science”

and “information systems” subject classifications.

Health Care Science and Service and Medical Sciences (23): This code includes all

titles that contain these subject classifications with single or multiple headings. This code

includes items with “public, environmental and occupational health” and “nursing”

subject categories. This classification includes “healthcare science and services” and

“veterinary sciences” including all medical sciences. This code also includes the subject

heading of “rehabilitation.”

Education (24): This classification includes all titles listed as “education and educational

research.”

Environmental Studies, Natural Sciences, and Science (25): This classification

includes all titles with that subject classification; includes agriculture interdisciplinary;

biology, also includes subjects with dual classifications such as “environmental studies

and urban studies.” This codes includes all items with the subjects of “fisheries,” “nuclear

science and technology,” “microbiology,” “energy,” “oceanography,” “water resources,”

and “ecology.”

175

Statistics and Mathematics (26): This classification includes all titles with the subjects

of “statistics and probability.”

176

Appendix C: Public Administration Listing of Journal Titles in the Web of Science:

2005, 2010, 2015

Table C.1. Public administration titles indexed in the Web of Science 2005

JCR Abbreviated Title* Full Journal Title

ADMIN SOC (AS) Administration & Society

ADMIN SOC WORK

(ASW)

Administration in Social Work

AM REV PUBLIC ADM

(ARPA)

American Review of Public Administration

AUST J PUBL ADMIN

(AJPA)

Australian Journal of Public Administration

CAN PUBLIC ADMIN

(CPA)

Canadian Journal of Public Administration

CAN PUBLIC POL

(CPP)

Canadian Public Administration --- Administration Publique du

Canada

CLIM POLICY (CP) Climate Policy

CONTEMP ECON

POLICY (CEP)

Contemporary Economic Policy

ENVIRON PLANN C

(EPC)

Environment and Planning C – Government and Policy

GOVERNANCE (GOV) Governance

INT REV ADM SCI

(IRAS)

International Review of Administrative Sciences

J EUR PUBLIC POLICY

(JEPP)

Journal of European Public Policy

J POLICY ANAL

MANAG (JPAM)

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

J PUBL ADM RES

THEOR (JPART)

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

J SOC POLICY (JSP) Journal of Social Policy

PHILOS PUBLIC AFF

(PPA)

Philosophy & Public Affairs

POLICY POLIT (PP) Policy and Politics

POLICY SCI (PS) Policy Sciences

POLICY STUD J (PSJ) Policy Studies Journal

PUBLIC ADMIN

(PA_UK)


PUBLIC ADMIN

DEVELOP (PAD)

Public Administration and Development

PUBLIC ADMIN REV

(PAR)

Public Administration Review

PUBLIC MONEY

MANAGE (PMM)

Public Money & Management

*In parentheses are specials abbreviations for Figures 4.4 to 4.7 that display the Hierarchical

Clustering Dendogram

177


JCR Abbreviated

Title*

Full Journal Title

ADMIN SOC

(AS)

Administration & Society

ADMIN SOC

WORK (ASW)

Administration in Social Work

AM REV PUBLIC

ADM (ARPA)


AMME IDARESI

DERG (AID)

Amme Idaresi Dergisi

AUST J PUBL

ADMIN (AJPA)


CAN PUBLIC

ADMIN (CPA)

Canadian Journal of Public Administration

CAN PUBLIC

POL (CPP)

Canadian Public Administration --- Administration Publique du Canada

CLIM POLICY

(CP)

Climate Policy

CONTEMP

ECON POLICY

(CEP)


ENVIRON

PLANN C (EPA)


GEST POLIT

PUBLICA (GPP)

Gestion y Politica Publica

GOVERNANCE

(GOV)

Governance

INNOVAR-REV

CIENC AD

(IRCA)

Innovar - Revista de Ciencias Administrativas y Sociales

INT PUBLIC

MANAG J (IPMJ)

International Public Management Journal

INT REV ADM

SCI (IRAS)


J ACCOUNT

PUBLIC POL

(JAPP)

Journal of Accounting and Public Policy

J EUR PUBLIC

POLICY (JEPP)


J EUR SOC

POLICY (JESP)

Journal of European Social Policy

J HOMEL SECUR

EMERG (JHSE)

Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management

J POLICY ANAL

MANAG (JPAM)


178

J PUBL ADM

RES THEOR

(JPART)


J SOC POLICY

(JSP)

Journal of Social Policy

LOCAL GOV

STUD (LGS)

Local Government Studies

PHILOS PUBLIC

AFF (PPA)

Philosophy & Public Affairs

POLICY POLIT

(PP)

Policy and Politics


POLICY STUD J

(PSJ)

Policy Studies Journal

PUBLIC ADMIN

(PA_UK)


PUBLIC ADMIN

DEVELOP (PAD)


PUBLIC ADMIN

REV (PAR)


PUBLIC MANAG

REV (PMR)

Public Management Review

PUBLIC MONEY

MANAGE (PMM)


PUBLIC PERS

MANAGE (PPM)

Public Personnel Management

REV CLAD

REFORMA DEM

(RCRD)

Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia

REV POLICY

RES (RPR)

Review of Policy Research

REV PUBLIC

PERS ADM

(RPPA)

Review of Public Personnel Administration

SOC POLICY

ADMIN (SPA)

Social Policy & Administration

TRANSYLV REV

ADM SCI (TRAS)

Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences



179


JCR Abbreviated

Title* Full Journal Title

ADMIN SOC (AS) Administration & Society

AM REV PUBLIC

ADM (ARPA)


AMME IDARESI

DERG (AID)

Amme Idaresi Dergisi

AUST J PUBL ADMIN

(AJPM)


CAN PUBLIC ADMIN

(CPA)

Canadian Public Administration --- Administration Publique du

Canada

CAN PUBLIC POL

(CPP)

Canadian Public Policy – Analyse de Politiques

CIV SZLE (CS) Civil Szemle

CLIM POLICY (CP) Climate Policy

CONTEMP ECON

POLICY (CEP)


ENVIRON PLANN C

(EPC)


GEST POLIT

PUBLICA (GPP)

Gestion y Politica Publica

GOVERNANCE (GOV) Governance

HUM SERV ORG

MANAGE (HSOM)

Human Service Organizations Management Leadership &

Governance

INT PUBLIC MANAG

J (IPMJ)

International Public Management Journal

INT REV ADM SCI

(IRAS)


J ACCOUNT PUBLIC

POL (JAPP)

Journal of Accounting and Public Policy

J COMP POLICY

ANAL (JCPA)

Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis

J EUR PUBLIC

POLICY (JEPP)


J EUR SOC POLICY

(JESP)

Journal of European Social Policy

J HOMEL SECUR

EMERG (JHSE)

Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management

J POLICY ANAL

MANAG (JPAM)


J PUBL ADM RES

THEOR (JPART)


J PUBLIC POLICY

(JPP)

Journal of Public Policy

J SOC POLICY (JSP) Journal of Social Policy

180

LEX LOCALIS (LL) Lex Localis-Journal of Local Self-Government

LOCAL GOV STUD

(LGS)

Local Government Studies

NONPROFIT MANAG

LEAD (NPML)

Nonprofit Management & Leadership

POLICY POLIT (PP) Policy and Politics


POLICY SOC (POLS) Policy and Society

POLICY STUD J (PSJ) Policy Studies Journal

POLICY STUD-UK

(PS_UK)

Policy Studies

PUBLIC ADMIN

(PA_UK)


PUBLIC ADMIN

DEVELOP (PAD)


PUBLIC ADMIN REV

(PAR)


PUBLIC MANAG REV

(PMR)

Public Management Review

PUBLIC MONEY

MANAGE (PMM)


PUBLIC PERFORM

MANAG (PPM)

Public Performance & Management Review

PUBLIC PERS

MANAGE (PPM)

Public Personnel Management

REGUL GOV (RG) Regulation & Governance

REV CLAD

REFORMA DEM

(RCRD)

Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia

REV POLICY RES

(RPR)

Review of Policy Research

REV PUBLIC PERS

ADM (RPPA)

Review of Public Personnel Administration

SCI PUBL POLICY

(SPP)

Science and Public Policy

SOC POLICY ADMIN

(SPA)

Social Policy & Administration

TRANSYLV REV

ADM SCI (TRAS)

Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences



181

Appendix D: Master List of Categorized Journals and Sources Indexed in the Web of

Science

Abbreviated Publication Title Indexed Category

1. 10 PUBL MAN RES C OC Not Indexed

2. 11 PUBL MAN RES C MA Not Indexed

3. 14 WUH INT C EB Not Indexed

4. 2 INT C ADV ED Not Indexed

5. 2 INT C ED SOC Not Indexed

6. 2 WAY STREET I DYNAM Not Indexed

7. 2010 ACM C COMP Not Indexed

8. 2010 C MAN CHIN Not Indexed

9. 2010 INT C MAN SCI Not Indexed

10. 6 GLOB FOR REINV GOV Not Indexed

11. 9 WUH INT C EB VOLS Not Indexed

12. ABACUS Business and Other

13. ACAD INT BUS SERIES Business Not Indexed

14. ACAD MANAG ANN Business Management

15. ACAD MANAG LEARN EDU Business Management

16. ACAD MANAGE EXEC Business Management

17. ACAD MANAGE J Business Management

18. ACAD MANAGE PERSPECT Business Management

19. ACAD MANAGE REV Business Management

20. ACAD MED Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

21. ACAD OF MANAGEMEN Business Not Indexed

22. ACAD_REV LATINOAM AD Business Management

23. ACCIDENT ANAL PREV Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

24. ACCOUNT AUDIT ACCOUN Business and Other

25. ACCOUNT BUS RES Business and Other

26. ACCOUNT FINANC Business and Other

27. ACCOUNT FORUM Business Not Indexed

28. ACCOUNT HORIZ Business and Other

29. ACCOUNT ORG SOC Business and Other

30. ACCOUNT REV Business and Other

31. ACTA OECON Economics

32. ACTA POLIT Political Science

33. ACTA SOCIOL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

34. ACTION RES_LONDON Business Management

35. ACTUAL PROBL ECON Economics

182

36. ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE Public Administration Not Indexed

37. ADM BEHAV STUDY DECI Public Administration Not Indexed

38. ADM POLICY MENT HLTH Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

39. ADM STATE STUDY POLI Public Administration Not Indexed

40. ADMIN BEHAV Public Administration Not Indexed

41. ADMIN LAW REV Law

42. ADMIN LAW TREATISE Public Administration Not Indexed

43. ADMIN SCI QUART Business Management

44. ADMIN SOC Public Administration

45. ADMIN SOC WORK Not Indexed

46. ADMIN THEOR PRAXIS Public Administration Not Indexed

47. ADULT LEARN PROF Not Indexed

48. ADV COMPLEX SYST Mathematics and Statistics

49. ADV EXP SOC PSYCHOL Psychology

50. ADV INT MARKETING Business Not Indexed

51. ADV INTEL SYS RES Not Indexed

52. ADV PUBLIC INTER ACC Business Not Indexed

53. ADV SCI LETT Environmental Studies

54. ADV SOC SCI EDUC HUM Not Indexed

55. ADV STRATEG MANAGE Business Management

56. AEBMR ADV ECON Business Not Indexed

57. AER ADV ENG RES Not Indexed

58. AFR AFFAIRS Political Science and Other

59. AFR J ACCOUNT AUDIT Business Not Indexed

60. AFR J BUS MANAGE Business Not Indexed

61. AFR J INF SYST Business Not Indexed

62. AFR RES B Not Indexed

63. AFR SECUR REV Political Science Not Indexed

64. AG SOFTW DEV CURR Not Indexed

65. AGE DIRECT CITIZEN P Public Administration Not Indexed

66. AGEING SOC Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

67. AGENDAS ALTERNATIVES Public Administration Not Indexed

68. AGGRESS VIOLENT BEH Psychology

69. AGR ECON_BLACKWELL Economics

70. AGRIBUSINESS Economics

71. AI SOC Not Indexed

72. ALL ORG ARE PUBLIC B Public Administration Not Indexed

73. ALLIANCE GLOB SUSTAI Public Administration Not Indexed

74. AM ANTHROPOL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

75. AM BEHAV SCI Psychology

183

76. AM BUS LAW J Business Not Indexed

77. AM C Not Indexed

78. AM COUNTY FRONTIERS Public Administration Not Indexed

79. AM ECON J_APPL ECON Economics

80. AM ECON J_ECON POLIC Economics

81. AM ECON J_MACROECON Economics

82. AM ECON J_MICROECON Economics

83. AM ECON REV Economics

84. AM EDUC RES J Education

85. AM FILM IND Not Indexed

86. AM HIST REV All Others

87. AM INTERGOVERNMENTAL Not Indexed

88. AM J BUS Business Not Indexed

89. AM J COMMUN PSYCHOL Psychology

90. AM J COMP LAW Law

91. AM J EDUC Education

92. AM J EVAL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

93. AM J INT LAW Law

94. AM J NURS Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

95. AM J PHARM EDUC Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

96. AM J POLIT SCI Political Science

97. AM J POLITI IN PRESS Political Science Not Indexed

98. AM J PREV MED Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

99. AM J PSYCHIAT Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

100. AM J PUBLIC HEALTH Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

101. AM J SOCIOL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

102. AM POLIT QUART Political Science

103. AM POLIT RES Political Science

104. AM POLIT SCI REV Political Science

105. AM POLIT THOUGHT Political Science Not Indexed

106. AM PSYCHOL Psychology

107. AM PUBLIC SERVICE RA Public Administration Not Indexed

108. AM REV CAN STUD Not Indexed

109. AM REV PUBLIC ADM Public Administration

110. AM SOCIOL REV Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

111. AM STAT Mathematics and Statistics

112. AM VOTER Political Science Not Indexed

113. AMFITEATRU ECON Economics

114. AMIS 2010 P 5 INT C Business Not Indexed

184

115. AMME IDARESI DERG Public Administration

116. AN PSICOL_SPAIN Psychology

117. ANAL SOC ISS PUB POL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

118. ANAL URBAN SERVICE D Public Administration Not Indexed

119. ANN AM ACAD POLIT SS Political Science and Other

120. ANN APPL STAT Mathematics and Statistics

121. ANN BEHAV MED Psychology

122. ANN DAAAM Not Indexed

123. ANN M MIDW POL SCI A Political Science Not Indexed

124. ANN MATH STAT Not Indexed

125. ANN PUBLIC COOP ECON Business Not Indexed

126. ANN REGIONAL SCI Interdisciplinary

127. ANN STAT Not Indexed

128. ANN TOURISM RES Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

129. ANNU M AM POLIT SCI Political Science Not Indexed

130. ANNU REV ECON Economics

131. ANNU REV LAW SOC SCI Law

132. ANNU REV POLIT SCI Political Science

133. ANNU REV PSYCHOL Psychology

134. ANNU REV SOCIOL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

135. ANTHROPOLOGIST Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

136. APPL ECON Economics

137. APPL ECON LETT Economics

138. APPL ERGON Engineering

139. APPL GEOGR All Others

140. APPL LINEAR STAT MOD Mathematics and Statistics

141. APPL MULTIPLE REGRES Mathematics and Statistics

142. APPL PSYCHOL_INT REV Psychology

143. ARGUM OECON Economics

144. ARMED FORCES SOC Political Science and Other

145. ART J Not Indexed

146. ASIA PAC BUS REV Business Management

147. ASIA PAC EDUC REV Education

148. ASIA PAC J HUM RESOU Business Management

149. ASIA PAC J MANAG Business Management

150. ASIA PAC J MARKET LO Business Not Indexed

151. ASIA PAC J TOUR RES Interdisciplinary Business

152. ASIA_PAC J ACCOUNT E Business and Other

185

153. ASIA_PAC J COOP EDUC Not Indexed

154. ASIAN BUS MANAG Business Management

155. ASIAN J BUS ETHICS Business Management

156. ASIAN J COMMUN Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

157. ASIAN J SOC PSYCHOL Psychology

158. ASIAN J SOC SCI Interdisciplinary

159. ASIAN J TECHNOL INNO Interdisciplinary Business

160. ASIAN POLIT POLICY Political Science Not Indexed

161. ASIAN REV ACCOUNT Business Not Indexed

162. ASIAN SOC WORK POLIC Not Indexed

163. ASIAN STUD REV Interdisciplinary

164. ASIAN SURV All Others

165. ASLIB J INFORM MANAG Computer Science and Information

Systems

166. ASME INT DES ENG Engineering

167. ASSESSMENTS REG Not Indexed

168. ATTRACTION PARADIGM Not Indexed

169. AUDITING_J PRACT TH Business and Other

170. AUST ACCOUNT REV Business and Other

171. AUST J CAREER DEV Business Not Indexed

172. AUST J MANAGE Business Management

173. AUST J POLIT SCI Political Science Not Indexed

174. AUST J PUBL ADMIN Public Administration

175. AUSTRALAS ACCOUNT BU Business Not Indexed

176. AUSTRALAS J INF SYST Not Indexed

177. AUSTRIAN J POLIT SCI Political Science

178. AUTOMAT CONSTR Engineering

179. B LAT AM RES All Others

180. BALT J MANAG Business Management

181. BASIC APPL SOC PSYCH Psychology

182. BASICS QUAL R Not Indexed

183. BE J ECON ANAL POLI Economics

184. BE J THEOR ECON Economics

185. BEHAV BRAIN SCI Psychology

186. BEHAV GENET Psychology

187. BEHAV INFORM TECHNOL Psychology

188. BEHAV SCI LAW Psychology

189. BEHAV THEOR FIRM Business Not Indexed

190. BELL J ECON Business Not Indexed

191. BETRIEB FORSCH PRAX Business Management

192. BIG IDEAS COLLABORAT Public Administration Not Indexed

186

193. BIOMETRICS Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

194. BIOMETRIKA Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

195. BMC FAM PRACT Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

196. BMC HEALTH SERV RES Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

197. BMC MED RES METHODOL Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

198. BMC PUBLIC HEALTH Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

199. BMJ OPEN Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

200. BMJ QUAL SAF Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

201. BOSTON U LAW REV Law

202. BRIT ACCOUNT REV Business and Other

203. BRIT FOOD J All Others

204. BRIT J IND RELAT Interdisciplinary Business

205. BRIT J MANAGE Business Management

206. BRIT J POLIT INT REL Political Science and Other

207. BRIT J POLIT SCI Political Science

208. BRIT J PSYCHOL Psychology

209. BRIT J SOC PSYCHOL Psychology

210. BRIT J SOC WORK All Others

211. BRIT J SOCIOL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

212. BRIT POLIT Political Science

213. BUDG PROC STAT Public Administration Not Indexed

214. BUFFALO LAW REV Law

215. BUILD RES INF Business Not Indexed

216. BUILT ENVIRON PROJ A Not Indexed

217. BUREAUCRACY REPRESEN Public Administration Not Indexed

218. BUREAUCRACY WHAT

GOV

Public Administration Not Indexed

219. BUS ETHICS Interdisciplinary Business

220. BUS ETHICS Q Interdisciplinary Business

221. BUS HIST Interdisciplinary Business

222. BUS HORIZONS Business and Other

223. BUS IMPROVEMENT Business Not Indexed

224. BUS INFORM SYST ENG+ Computer Science and Information

Systems

225. BUS PEACE SUSTAIN DE Business Not Indexed

226. BUS PERF MEAS MAN Business Not Indexed

227. BUS PROCESS MANAG J Business Not Indexed

228. BUS SOC Business and Other

229. BUS SOC REV/INNOV Business Not Indexed

230. BUS STRATEG ENVIRON Business Management

231. BUS WEEK Business Not Indexed

187

232. C ELECTORAL CONNECTI Political Science Not Indexed

233. C POLIT EC HIST Political Science Not Indexed

234. C RECONSIDERED Not Indexed

235. CAH ETUD AFR Not Indexed

236. CALIF LAW REV Law

237. CALIF MANAGE REV Business Management

238. CAMB J ECON Economics

239. CAMB REV INT AFF International Affairs

240. CAMBRIDGE HDB EXPERT Business Not Indexed

241. CAMBRIDGE J ECON Economics

242. CAN J ADM SCI Business Management

243. CAN J BEHAV SCI Psychology

244. CAN J POLIT SCI Political Science

245. CAN J SOCIOL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

246. CAN PUBLIC ADMIN Public Administration

247. CAN PUBLIC POL Public Administration

248. CAN REV SOCIOL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

249. CANADIAN FOREIGN POL Political Science Not Indexed

250. CAREER DEV INT Business Management

251. CASE BUREAUCRACY PUB Public Administration Not Indexed

252. CASE STUD CITY CO Public Administration Not Indexed

253. CASE STUDY RES DESIG Business Not Indexed

254. CENT EUR J OPER RES Business Management

255. CENT EUR J PUBL HEAL Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

256. CHALLENGING PERFORMA Public Administration Not Indexed

257. CHANGE SOC BUS ENV Business Not Indexed

258. CHEM LISTY All Others

259. CHI2010 P 28 ANN Business Not Indexed

260. CHILD ADOL PSYCH CL Psychology

261. CHILD YOUTH SERV REV Interdisciplinary

262. CHIN J COMMUN Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

263. CHIN MANAG STUD Business Management

264. CHINA ECON REV Economics

265. CHINA INT J Interdisciplinary

266. CHINA QUART All Others

267. CHINESE PUBLIC ADM Public Administration Not Indexed

268. CITIES Public Administration Not Indexed

269. CITIZENSHIP STUD Political Science

270. CITYSCAPE Public Administration Not Indexed

188

271. CIV SZLE Public Administration

272. CIVIL SERVICE REFORM Public Administration Not Indexed

273. CLARIFY SOFTWARE INT Not Indexed

274. CLIM POLICY Public Administration and Other

275. CLOTH TEXT RES J Interdisciplinary Business

276. COGNITIVE PSYCHOL Psychology

277. COGNITIVE SCI Psychology

278. COLL RES LIBR Computer Science and Information

Systems

279. COLLABORATIVE PUBLIC Public Administration Not Indexed

280. COLLECT WORKS Political Science Not Indexed

281. COLUMBIA J LAW SOC P Law

282. COLUMBIA J WORLD BUS Interdisciplinary Business

283. COLUMBIA LAW REV Law

284. COMM COM INF SC Business Not Indexed

285. COMMONW J LOCAL GOV Public Administration Not Indexed

286. COMMUN ACM Computer Science and Information

Systems

287. COMMUN MONOGR Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

288. COMMUN RES Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

289. COMMUN THEOR Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

290. COMMUNICATION Not Indexed

291. COMMUNIS

POST_COMMUN

Political Science and Other

292. COMP EUR POLIT Political Science

293. COMP POLIT Political Science

294. COMP POLIT STUD Political Science

295. COMP SOCIOL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

296. COMPANION ORG Business Not Indexed

297. COMPETITIVE ADVANTAG Business Not Indexed

298. COMPLEXITY Mathematics and Statistics

299. COMPTAB CONTROL AUDI Business Not Indexed

300. COMPUT EDUC Education

301. COMPUT HUM BEHAV Computer Science and Information

Systems

302. COMPUT IND Computer Science and Information

Systems

303. COMPUT MATH ORGAN TH Computer Science and Information

Systems

189

304. COMPUT SUPP COOP W J Computer Science and Information

Systems

305. CONCEPT REPRESENTATI Political Science Not Indexed

306. CONFL RESOLUT Q Public Administration Not Indexed

307. CONFLICT MANAG PEACE International Affairs

308. CONNECTED COMMUNITIE Not Indexed

309. CONSTELLATIONS Political Science Not Indexed

310. CONSTITUTION SOC OUT Political Science Not Indexed

311. CONSTR ECON BUILD Business Not Indexed

312. CONSTR MANAG ECON Business Not Indexed

313. CONTEMP ACCOUNT RES Business and Other

314. CONTEMP ECON POLICY Economics

315. CONTEMP POLIT Political Science

316. CONTEMP POLIT THEORY Political Science

317. CONTROV ELECT DEMOCR Political Science Not Indexed

318. CONVERGENCIA Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

319. COOP CONFL Political Science and Other

320. CORNELL HOSP Q Interdisciplinary Business

321. CORNELL INT LAW J Law

322. CORNELL LAW REV Law

323. CORP GOV Business Management

324. CORP GOV_INT J BUS S Business Not Indexed

325. CORP GOV_OXFORD Business and Other

326. CORP REPUT REV Business Not Indexed

327. CORP SOC RESP ENV MA Interdisciplinary Business

328. CORPORATE REPUTATION Business Not Indexed

329. COUNTY GOV ERA CHAN Public Administration Not Indexed

330. CREAT INNOV MANAG Business Management

331. CREATING PUBLIC VALU Public Administration Not Indexed

332. CREATIVITY RES J Psychology

333. CRIM JUSTICE BEHAV Criminal Justice

334. CRIME DELINQUENCY Criminal Justice

335. CRIME LAW SOCIAL CH Criminal Justice

336. CRIMINOLOGY Criminal Justice

337. CRIT CITIZENS GL Political Science Not Indexed

338. CRIT PERSPECT ACCOUN Business and Other

339. CRIT REV Political Science

340. CROSS CULT MANAG Business Management

341. CROSS_CULT RES Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

342. CUAD ECON DIR EMPRES Business and Other

190

343. CULT ORGAN Business Management

344. CULT SOCIOL_LONDON Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

345. CULT WARS DOCUMEN Not Indexed

346. CULTURES CONSEQUENCE Not Indexed

347. CURR DIR PSYCHOL SCI Psychology

348. CURR ISSUES TOUR Interdisciplinary Business

349. CURR OPIN ENV SUST Not Indexed

350. CURR OPIN PSYCHOL Psychology

351. CURR PSYCHOL Psychology

352. CURR TREND PUB SECT Public Administration Not Indexed

353. CYBERNET SYST Computer Science and Information

Systems

354. DADOS_REV CIENC SOC Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

355. DAILY GATER Not Indexed

356. DATA BASE ADV INF SY Computer Science and Information

Systems

357. DECIS SUPPORT SYST Computer Science and Information

Systems

358. DECISION SCI Business Management

359. DEFENCE PEACE ECON Economics

360. DELEGATING POWERS T Public Administration Not Indexed

361. DELIBERATE DISCRETIO Public Administration Not Indexed

362. DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRA Public Administration Not Indexed

363. DEMOCRACY DEV POLITI Political Science Not Indexed

364. DEMOCRACY PUBLIC SER Public Administration Not Indexed

365. DEMOCRATIC TRAJECTOR Political Science Not Indexed

366. DEMOCRATIZATION Political Science

367. DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFEREN Not Indexed

368. DENVER U LAW REV Law

369. DESARROLLO ECON Economics

370. DETROIT NEWS Not Indexed

371. DEV POLICY REV Public Administration Not Indexed

372. DIFFUSION INNOVATION Business Not Indexed

373. DIMENS EMPRESARIAL Business Not Indexed

374. DISASTER MED PUBLIC Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

375. DISASTER PREV MANAG Interdisciplinary

376. DISASTERS Interdisciplinary

377. DISCOURSE COMMUN Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

378. DISCOV GROUNDED THEO Not Indexed

191

379. DISSERT ABSTR Not Indexed

380. DU BOIS REV Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

381. DUKE LAW J Law

382. DYNA_BILBAO Engineering

383. DYNAMICS PERFORMANCE Not Indexed

384. E EUR POLIT SOC Political Science

385. E M EKON MANAG Interdisciplinary Business

386. EBM 2010 INT C ENG Not Indexed

387. EC POLITICS Political Science Not Indexed

388. EC THEOR DEMOCRACY Political Science Not Indexed

389. ECOL ECON Economics

390. ECOL SOC Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

391. ECON BULL Not Indexed

392. ECON COMPUT ECON CYB Mathematics and Statistics

393. ECON DEV Q Economics

394. ECON GEOGR Economics

395. ECON GOV Economics

396. ECON IND DEMOCRACY Interdisciplinary Business

397. ECON INQ Economics

398. ECON J Economics

399. ECON LEGAL RELATION Economics

400. ECON LETT Economics

401. ECON MODEL Economics

402. ECON POLICY Economics

403. ECON POLIT_ITALY Economics

404. ECON POLIT_OXFORD Political Science and Other

405. ECON RES_EKON ISTRAZ Economics

406. ECON SOCIOL Economics

407. ECON THEOR Economics

408. ECON TRANSIT Economics

409. ECONOMETRIC ANAL Economics

410. ECONOMETRIC ANAL CRO Economics

411. ECONOMETRICA Economics

412. ECONOMIES Not Indexed

413. ECONOMIST_NETHERLAND Economics

414. EDUC ADMIN QUART Education

415. EDUC EVAL POLICY AN Education

416. EDUC MANAG ADM LEAD Education

417. EDUC POLICY Education

418. EDUC PSYCHOL MEAS Education

192

419. EDUC RES REV_NETH Education

420. EDUC RESEARCHER Education

421. EDUC SCI_THEOR PRACT Education

422. EDUC STUD_UK Education

423. EDUC TRAIN Education

424. EGIT BILIM Education

425. EKON CAS Economics

426. ELECT LAW J Political Science Not Indexed

427. ELECT STUD Political Science

428. ELECTRON COMMER R A Computer Science and Information

Systems

429. ELECTRON COMMER RES Interdisciplinary Business

430. ELECTRON MARK Business Management

431. ELEM SCHOOL J Education

432. EMERG MARK FINANC TR Business Management

433. EMERG MARK REV Business and Other

434. EMERGENCY MANAGE Public Administration Not Indexed

435. EMOTION Psychology

436. EMPIR ECON Economics

437. EMPL RELAT Business Management

438. ENB Not Indexed

439. ENERG POLICY Environmental Studies

440. ENG CONSTR ARCHIT MA Engineering

441. ENTREP REGION DEV Public Administration Not Indexed

442. ENTREP RES J Business and Other

443. ENTREP THEORY PRACT Business and Other

444. ENVIRON BEHAV Environmental Studies

445. ENVIRON ENG MANAG J Engineering

446. ENVIRON MANAGE Environmental Studies

447. ENVIRON PLANN A Environmental Studies

448. ENVIRON PLANN B Environmental Studies

449. ENVIRON PLANN C Public Administration and Other

450. ENVIRON POLICY GOV Environmental Studies

451. ENVIRON POLIT Political Science and Other

452. ENVIRON SCI POLICY Political Science Not Indexed

453. EPIDEMIOLOGY Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

454. EQUAL DIVERS INCL Business Not Indexed

455. ERGONOMICS Engineering

456. ETHICAL PERSPECT All Others

457. ETHICS All Others

458. ETHICS BEHAV Psychology

193

459. ETHNIC RACIAL STUD Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

460. ETHNOGRAPHIC INTERVI Not Indexed

461. EUR ACCOUNT REV Business and Other

462. EUR BUS REV Business and Other

463. EUR CONF RES METH Not Indexed

464. EUR ECON REV Economics

465. EUR BANK SYST Business Not Indexed

466. EUR FINANC MANAG Business and Other

467. EUR INTEGR ONLINE PA Political Science Not Indexed

468. EUR J COMMUN Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

469. EUR J DEV RES All Others

470. EUR J FINANC Business and Other

471. EUR J IND RELAT Interdisciplinary Business

472. EUR J INFORM SYST Computer Science and Information

Systems

473. EUR J INT MANAG Business Management

474. EUR J INT RELAT International Affairs

475. EUR J LAW ECON Law

476. EUR J MARKETING Business and Other

477. EUR J OPER RES Business and Other

478. EUR J PERSONALITY Psychology

479. EUR J POLIT ECON Political Science and Other

480. EUR J POLIT RES Political Science

481. EUR J PSYCHOL APPL L Psychology

482. EUR J SOC PSYCHOL Psychology

483. EUR J SOC WORK Interdisciplinary

484. EUR J TOUR HOSP RECR Interdisciplinary Business

485. EUR J WORK ORGAN PSY Psychology

486. EUR LAW J Law

487. EUR MANAG J Business Management

488. EUR MANAG REV Business Management

489. EUR PLAN STUD All Others

490. EUR POLIT SCI Political Science

491. EUR POLIT SCI REV Political Science

492. EUR REV APPL PSYCHOL Psychology

493. EUR REV ECON HIST Economics

494. EUR SOC Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

495. EUR SOCIOL REV Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

194

496. EUR SPORT MANAG Q Interdisciplinary Business

497. EUR UNION POLIT Political Science

498. EUR URBAN REG STUD Environmental Studies

499. EUR UROL Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

500. EURASIAN BUS REV Business and Other

501. EURASIAN GEOGR ECON Economics

502. EUROPE_ASIA STUD Political Science and Other

503. EVALUATION REV Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

504. EVID POLICY Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

505. EVOL THEOR Not Indexed

506. EVOLUTION ELECTORAL Political Science Not Indexed

507. EXCHANGE POWER SOC Business Not Indexed

508. EXP ECON Economics

509. EXPERT SYST APPL Computer Science and Information

Systems

510. EXPLOR ECON HIST Economics

511. EXPLORING POSITIVE I Business Not Indexed

512. EXTERNAL CONTROL ORG Business Not Indexed

513. EXTR IND SOC Business Not Indexed

514. FAC SOC CLASS HOW Not Indexed

515. FAM BUS REV Business and Other

516. FAM SOC Economics

517. FINANC ACCOUNTABI Business Not Indexed

518. FINANC ANAL J Business and Other

519. FINANC MANAGE Business Management

520. FOOD POLICY Economics

521. FORDHAM LAW REV Law

522. FOREIGN AFF International Affairs

523. FOREIGN POL ANAL_US International Affairs

524. FOREIGN POLICY ANAL International Affairs

525. FOREST POLICY ECON Economics

526. FOREST RANGER STUDY Not Indexed

527. FORESTS Environmental Studies

528. FORGING BUREAUCRATIC Public Administration Not Indexed

529. FORM GOV SURV Political Science Not Indexed

530. FORMATION LABOUR MOV Political Science Not Indexed

531. FORUM_J APPL RES CON Political Science

532. FR ART INT Not Indexed

533. FRONT PSYCHOL Psychology

534. FUNCT EXECUTIVE Business Not Indexed

195

535. FUTURES Economics

536. FUZZY SET SYST Not Indexed

537. GAME ECON BEHAV Economics

538. GEDRAG ORGAN Psychology

539. GENDER BUDGETS MAKE Public Administration Not Indexed

540. GENDER SOC Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

541. GENDER WORK ORGAN Interdisciplinary Business

542. GEOFORUM All Others

543. GEOGR ANN A Not Indexed

544. GEORGE WASH LAW REV Law

545. GEORGETOWN LAW J Law

546. GER ECON REV Economics

547. GER POLIT Political Science

548. GERONTOLOGIST Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

549. GEST POLIT PUBLICA Public Administration

550. GLOB CHANG PEACE SEC Political Science Not Indexed

551. GLOB POLICY Political Science and Other

552. GLOB STRATEG J Business Management

553. GLOBAL ECON REV Economics

554. GLOBAL ENVIRON CHANG Environmental Studies

555. GLOBAL ENVIRON POLIT Political Science and Other

556. GLOBAL NETW Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

557. GMC15 P 11 INT S Not Indexed

558. GOOD SOC Public Administration Not Indexed

559. GOV FINANCE REV Public Administration Not Indexed

560. GOV ILL EXECUTED DE Public Administration Not Indexed

561. GOV INFORM Q Computer Science and Information

Systems

562. GOV OPPOS Political Science

563. GOV RESTRUCTURING C Public Administration Not Indexed

564. GOVERNANCE Interdis. Public Admin. and Pol.

Science

565. GOVERNING Public Administration Not Indexed

566. GROUP DECIS NEGOT Interdisciplinary Business

567. GROUP DYN_THEOR RES Psychology

568. GROUP ORGAN MANAGE Business Management

569. GROUP PROCESS INTERG Psychology

570. GROWTH CHANGE All Others

571. GRUPPENDYNAMIK

ORGAN

Psychology

196

572. HABITAT INT Environmental Studies

573. HACET UNIV EGIT FAK Business Not Indexed

574. HACIENDA PUBLICA ESP Economics

575. HANDB ADMIN ETHICS Public Administration Not Indexed

576. HANDB ORG Business Not Indexed

577. HANDB ORG BEHAV Business Not Indexed

578. HANDB ORG I Business Not Indexed

579. HANDB ORG STUDIES Business Not Indexed

580. HANDB PERS THEORY Not Indexed

581. HANDB PUBLIC ADM Public Administration Not Indexed

582. HANDB SELF IDENTITY Not Indexed

583. HANDB SOC PSYCHOL Psychology

584. HARV INT J PRESS/POL Political Science and Other

585. HARVARD BUS REV Business Management

586. HARVARD LAW REV Law

587. HASTINGS LAW J Law

588. HDB IND ORG PSYCHOL Psychology

589. HDB STRATEGIC MANAGE Business Not Indexed

590. HEALTH AFFAIR Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

591. HEALTH CARE MANAGE R Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

592. HEALTH COMMUN Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

593. HEALTH ECON Economics

594. HEALTH EDUC BEHAV Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

595. HEALTH POLICY Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

596. HEALTH POLICY PLANN Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

597. HEALTH POLICY TECHN Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

598. HEALTH PROMOT INT Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

599. HEALTH RES POLICY SY Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

600. HEALTH SERV RES Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

601. HEALTH TECHNOL ASSES Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

602. HIERARCHIAL LINEAR M Not Indexed

603. HIERARCHICAL LINEAR Not Indexed

604. HIGH EDUC Education

605. HIGH EDUC RES DEV Education

606. HISPANIC J BEHAV SCI Psychology

607. HIST POLIT ECON Political Science Not Indexed

608. HIST POLIT THOUGHT Political Science Not Indexed

609. HIST SOC RES Interdisciplinary

610. HOME STYLE HOUSE MEM Not Indexed

611. HOUSING STUD Environmental Studies

197

612. HUM COMMUN RES Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

613. HUM ECOL RISK ASSESS Environmental Studies

614. HUM FACTOR ERGON MAN Engineering

615. HUM FACTORS Psychology

616. HUM PERFORM Psychology

617. HUM RELAT Business Management

618. HUM RESOUR DEV Q Business Management

619. HUM RESOUR DEV REV Business Management

620. HUM RESOUR MANAG J Business Management

621. HUM RESOUR MANAGE R Business Management

622. HUM RESOUR MANAGE_US Interdisciplinary Business

623. HUM RESOURCE MANAG Business Management

624. HUM RESOURCE MANAGE Business Management

625. HUM RIGHTS QUART Political Science and Other

626. HUM SERV ORG MANAGE Public Administration and Other

627. I C SERV SYST SERV M Not Indexed

628. I I CHANGE EC PERFOR Public Administration Not Indexed

629. I LOGICS PERSPECTIVE Business Not Indexed

630. I ORG Business Not Indexed

631. I WORK ACTORS AGENCY Not Indexed

632. ICON_INT J CONST LAW Law

633. IDENTITY ORG BUILDIN Business Not Indexed

634. IDEOLOGY DISCONTENT Political Science Not Indexed

635. IEEE SYS MAN CYBERN Not Indexed

636. IEEE T ENG MANAGE Engineering

637. IEEE T PROF COMMUN Engineering

638. IFERA CHIN 2010 FAM Not Indexed

639. IFIP ADV INF COMM TE Not Indexed

640. IFKAD 2015 10 INT Not Indexed

641. ILR REV Interdisciplinary Business

642. IMPLEMENT SCI Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

643. IMPLEMENTATION Public Administration Not Indexed

644. IMPRESSION MANAGEMEN Business Not Indexed

645. IN C IND ENG ENG MAN Not Indexed

646. IN DEPTH REPORT Not Indexed

647. IN PRESS PUBLIC ADM Public Administration Not Indexed

648. IND CORP CHANGE Business Management

649. IND INNOV Business Management

650. IND LABOR RELAT REV Interdisciplinary Business

651. IND MANAGE DATA SYST Computer Science and Information

Systems

198

652. IND MARKET MANAG Business Management

653. IND ORGAN PSYCHOL_US Psychology

654. IND RELAT Interdisciplinary Business

655. INEQUALITY HETEROGEN Not Indexed

656. INF ORGAN Business Not Indexed

657. INF SYST E_BUS MANAG Computer Science and Information

Systems

658. INF SYST PEOPL ORG Not Indexed

659. INFORM COMMUN SOC Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

660. INFORM

MANAGE_AMSTER

Computer Science and Information

Systems

661. INFORM ORGAN_UK Computer Science and Information

Systems

662. INFORM RES Computer Science and Information

Systems

663. INFORM SOC Computer Science and Information

Systems

664. INFORM SOFTWARE TECH Computer Science and Information

Systems

665. INFORM SYST FRONT Business Not Indexed

666. INFORM SYST J Computer Science and Information

Systems

667. INFORM SYST MANAGE Computer Science and Information

Systems

668. INFORM SYST RES Computer Science and Information

Systems

669. INFORM TECHNOL DEV Computer Science and Information

Systems

670. INFORM TECHNOL MANAG Computer Science and Information

Systems

671. INFORM TECHNOL PEOPL Computer Science and Information

Systems

672. INN FIN EC Business Not Indexed

673. INN MAN SUST EC Business Not Indexed

674. INN VIS 2020 REG Business Not Indexed

675. INNOV_MANAG POLICY P Business Management

676. INNOVAR_REV CIENC AD Interdisciplinary Business

677. INNOVATION CREATIVIT Not Indexed

678. INNOVATION_ABINGDON Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

679. INSIDE BUREAUCRACY Public Administration Not Indexed

680. INST WORK ACT AG Business Not Indexed

199

681. INT AFF International Affairs

682. INT ARCH OCC ENV HEA Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

683. INT BUS REV Business and Other

684. INT C ADV ED MAN IC Not Indexed

685. INT C ADV MAN SCI Not Indexed

686. INT C SOC SCI MAN Not Indexed

687. INT COMMUN GAZ Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

688. INT COMP LAW Q Law

689. INT CONF ENG DES Business Not Indexed

690. INT DIMENSIONS INTER Not Indexed

691. INT ECON REV Economics

692. INT ENTREP MANAG J Business Management

693. INT FED INFO PROC Not Indexed

694. INT FOOD AGRIBUS MAN Economics

695. INT INTERACT International Affairs

696. INT J ACCOUNT INF SY Interdisciplinary Business

697. INT J ADV MANUF TECH Engineering

698. INT J AGING HUM DEV Psychology

699. INT J COMMUN_US Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

700. INT J COMP SOCIOL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

701. INT J COMP_SUPP COLL Computer Science and Information

Systems

702. INT J COMPUT INT SYS Computer Science and Information

Systems

703. INT J CONFL MANAGE Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

704. INT J CONSUM STUD Business and Other

705. INT J CONTEMP HOSP M Interdisciplinary Business

706. INT J CULT TOUR HOSP Business Not Indexed

707. INT J DISAST RISK RE Not Indexed

708. INT J DISCL GOV Business Not Indexed

709. INT J DISTRIB SENS N Computer Science and Information

Systems

710. INT J EDUC MANAG Business Not Indexed

711. INT J ELECTRON COMM Computer Science and Information

Systems

712. INT J ENG BUS MANAG Business Not Indexed

713. INT J ENV RES PUB HE Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

714. INT J FINANC STUD Business Not Indexed

200

715. INT J FORECASTING Economics

716. INT J GAME THEORY Mathematics and Statistics

717. INT J HEALTH PLAN M Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

718. INT J HOSP MANAG Interdisciplinary Business

719. INT J HUM RESOUR MAN Business Management

720. INT J HUM_COMPUT INT Computer Science and Information

Systems

721. INT J HUM_COMPUT ST Computer Science and Information

Systems

722. INT J IND ORGAN Economics

723. INT J INF LEARN TECH Computer Science and Information

Systems

724. INT J INF TECH DECIS Computer Science and Information

Systems

725. INT J INFORM MANAGE Computer Science and Information

Systems

726. INT J INNOV COMPUT I Computer Science and Information

Systems

727. INT J INNOV TECHNOL Computer Science and Information

Systems

728. INT J INTERCULT REL Economics

729. INT J KNOWL LEARN Business Not Indexed

730. INT J LOGIST MANAG Business Management

731. INT J LOGIST_RES APP Business Management

732. INT J MANAG PROJ BUS Business Management

733. INT J MANAG REV Business Management

734. INT J MANPOWER Interdisciplinary Business

735. INT J MASS EMERGENCI Public Administration Not Indexed

736. INT J MED INFORM Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

737. INT J MOB COMMUN Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

738. INT J NURS PRACT Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

739. INT J NURS STUD Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

740. INT J OPER PROD MAN Business Management

741. INT J ORGAN LEADERSH Business Management

742. INT J PHYS DISTR LOG Business Not Indexed

743. INT J PRESS/POLIT Political Science and Other

744. INT J PROD ECON Business Not Indexed

745. INT J PROD RES Engineering

746. INT J PROJ MANAG Business Management

747. INT J PSYCHOL Psychology

748. INT J PUBLIC ADMIN Public Administration Not Indexed

201

749. INT J PUBLIC OPIN R Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

750. INT J PUBLIC SECT MA Public Administration Not Indexed

751. INT J PUBLIC SECTOR Public Administration Not Indexed

752. INT J RES MARK Business and Other

753. INT J SELECT ASSESS Business Management

754. INT J SERV IND MANAG Business Management

755. INT J SERV TECHNOL M Computer Science and Information

Systems

756. INT J SHIP TRANS LOG Business Management

757. INT J SOC ECON Business Not Indexed

758. INT J SOC RES METHOD Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

759. INT J SOC WELF All Others

760. INT J SPORTS SCI COA Psychology

761. INT J STRESS MANAGE Psychology

762. INT J TECHNOL MANAGE Computer Science and Information

Systems

763. INT J TOUR RES Interdisciplinary Business

764. INT J TRANSIT JUST Political Science Not Indexed

765. INT J URBAN REGIONAL Public Administration Not Indexed

766. INT J WINE BUS RES Business Not Indexed

767. INT MARKET REV Business and Other

768. INT MIGR REV Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

769. INT ORGAN International Affairs

770. INT POLIT SCI REV Political Science

771. INT POLITICS Political Science and Other

772. INT PUBLIC MANAG J Public Administration

773. INT RELAT International Affairs

774. INT RELAT ASIA_PAC International Affairs

775. INT REV ADM SCI Public Administration

776. INT REV ECON FINANC Interdisciplinary Business

777. INT REV FINANC ANAL Business and Other

778. INT REV LAW ECON Economics

779. INT REV SOCIOL Economics

780. INT REV SOCIOL SPORT Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

781. INT SECURITY International Affairs

782. INT SMALL BUS J Business Management

783. INT SOCIOL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

202

784. INT STUD PERSPECT International Affairs

785. INT STUD QUART Political Science and Other

786. INT STUD REV Political Science and Other

787. INT TAX PUBLIC FINAN Economics

788. INT THEOR Political Science and Other

789. INTANG CAP Business Not Indexed

790. INTELLIGENCE Psychology

791. INTERNET RES Computer Science and Information

Systems

792. INVEST ANAL J Business and Other

793. INVEST EUR DIR ECO E Business Not Indexed

794. INZ EKON Economics

795. IOWA LAW REV Law

796. IRAN J MANAG STUD Business Not Indexed

797. IRISH POLIT STUD Political Science

798. ISSUES STUD Political Science and Other

799. J ABNORM PSYCHOL Psychology

800. J ACAD LIBR Computer Science and Information

Systems

801. J ACAD MARKET SCI Business and Other

802. J ACCOUNT ECON Business and Other

803. J ACCOUNT PUBLIC POL Public Administration and Other

804. J ACCOUNT RES Business and Other

805. J ADV NURS Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

806. J ADVERTISING RES Interdisciplinary Business

807. J AIR TRANSP MANAG All Others

808. J AM PLANN ASSOC All Others

809. J AM SOC INF SCI TEC Computer Science and Information

Systems

810. J AM STAT ASSOC Mathematics and Statistics

811. J APPL BEHAV SCI Psychology

812. J APPL COMMUN RES Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

813. J APPL CORPORATE FIN Business Not Indexed

814. J APPL GERONTOL Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

815. J APPL PSYCHOL Interdisciplinary Business

816. J APPL RES MEM COGN Interdisciplinary Business

817. J APPL SOC PSYCHOL Psychology

818. J APPL SPORT PSYCHOL Psychology

819. J ART MANAG LAW SOC Business Not Indexed

820. J ASIAN AFR STUD All Others

203

821. J ASSOC INF SCI TECH Computer Science and Information

Systems

822. J ASSOC INF SYST Computer Science and Information

Systems

823. J BANK FINANC Business and Other

824. J BEHAV DECIS MAKING Psychology

825. J BEHAV EXP ECON Economics

826. J BEHAV FINANC Interdisciplinary Business

827. J BEHAV HEALTH SER R Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

828. J BLACK STUD Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

829. J BRAND MANAG Business Not Indexed

830. J BROADCAST ELECTRON Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

831. J BUS Business and Other

832. J BUS ECON MANAG Business and Other

833. J BUS ECON STAT Business and Other

834. J BUS ETHICS Interdisciplinary Business

835. J BUS FINAN ACCOUNT Business and Other

836. J BUS IND MARK Business and Other

837. J BUS LOGIST Business and Other

838. J BUS PSYCHOL Interdisciplinary Business

839. J BUS RES Business Management

840. J BUS TECH COMMUN Interdisciplinary Business

841. J BUS VENTURING Business and Other

842. J BUS_BUS MARK Business and Other

843. J CAREER ASSESSMENT Psychology

844. J CAREER DEV Psychology

845. J CHOICE MODEL Economics

846. J CIV ENG MANAG Engineering

847. J CLEAN PROD Environmental Studies

848. J COASTAL RES Environmental Studies

849. J COMMUN Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

850. J COMMUNITY PSYCHOL Psychology

851. J COMP ECON Economics

852. J COMP POLICY ANAL Public Administration

853. J COMPUT GRAPH STAT Computer Science and Information

Systems

854. J COMPUT INFORM SYST Computer Science and Information

Systems

204

855. J COMPUT_MEDIAT COMM Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

856. J CONFLICT RESOLUT Political Science and Other

857. J CONSTR ENG M Engineering

858. J CONSTR ENG M ASCE Engineering

859. J CONSUM BEHAV Business and Other

860. J CONSUM MARK Business Not Indexed

861. J CONSUM PSYCHOL Interdisciplinary Business

862. J CONSUM RES Interdisciplinary Business

863. J CONTEMP ASIA Interdisciplinary

864. J CONTEMP CHINA All Others

865. J CONTEMP ETHNOGR Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

866. J CONTING CRISIS MAN Business Management

867. J CONTINGENCIES CRIS Public Administration Not Indexed

868. J CORP FINANC Business and Other

869. J CREATIVE BEHAV Psychology

870. J CRIM JUST Criminal Justice

871. J CROSS CULT PSYCHOL Psychology

872. J CULT ECON Economics

873. J DEMOCR Political Science

874. J DEV ECON Economics

875. J DEV STUD Economics

876. J E EUR MANAG STUD Business Management

877. J EAST ASIAN STUD Interdisciplinary

878. J ECON BEHAV ORGAN Economics

879. J ECON BUS Business Not Indexed

880. J ECON GEOGR Economics

881. J ECON GROWTH Economics

882. J ECON HIST Economics

883. J ECON ISSUES Economics

884. J ECON LIT Economics

885. J ECON MANAGE STRAT Business Management

886. J ECON PERSPECT Economics

887. J ECON PSYCHOL Economics

888. J ECON SOCIOL Economics

889. J ECON SURV Economics

890. J ECON THEORY Economics

891. J ECONOMETRICS Economics

892. J EDUC ADMIN Not Indexed

893. J EDUC BEHAV STAT Education

894. J EDUC COMPUT RES Education

205

895. J EDUC PSYCHOL Psychology

896. J ELECTRON COMMER RE Business and Other

897. J EMPIR FINANC Interdisciplinary Business

898. J EMPIR LEGAL STUD Law

899. J EMPLOYMENT COUNS Psychology

900. J ENG DESIGN Engineering

901. J ENG TECHNOL MANAGE Engineering

902. J ENTERP INF MANAG Computer Science and Information

Systems

903. J ENVIRON ECON MANAG Economics

904. J ENVIRON MANAGE Environmental Studies

905. J ENVIRON PLANN MAN Environmental Studies

906. J ENVIRON POL PLAN Political Science Not Indexed

907. J ENVIRON PSYCHOL Environmental Studies

908. J EPIDEMIOL COMMUN H Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

909. J ETHN MIGR STUD Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

910. J EUR ECON ASSOC Economics

911. J EUR PUBLIC POLICY Interdis. Public Admin. and Pol.

Science

912. J EUR SOC POLICY Public Administration and Other

913. J EVAL CLIN PRACT Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

914. J EVOL ECON Economics

915. J EXP PSYCHOL_APPL Psychology

916. J EXP SOC PSYCHOL Psychology

917. J FAM BUS STRATEG Business Management

918. J FINANC Interdisciplinary Business

919. J FINANC ECON Interdisciplinary Business

920. J FINANC SERV MARK Business Not Indexed

921. J FOOD PROD MARK Not Indexed

922. J GLOB INF MANAG Business Management

923. J GLOB INF TECH MAN Computer Science and Information

Systems

924. J GLOB MARK Business Not Indexed

925. J HAPPINESS STUD Psychology

926. J HEALTH ECON Economics

927. J HEALTH ORGAN MANAG Public Administration Not Indexed

928. J HEALTH POLIT POLIC Law

929. J HIGH EDUC Education

930. J HIGH EDUC POLICY M Education

931. J HIST BEHAV SCI Psychology

206

932. J HIST SOCIOL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

933. J HOMEL SECUR EMERG Public Administration

934. J HOMOSEXUAL Psychology

935. J HOSP LEIS SPORT TO Interdisciplinary Business

936. J HOSP MARKET MANAG Business Not Indexed

937. J HOSP TOUR RES Interdisciplinary Business

938. J HUM BEHAV SOC ENVI Not Indexed

939. J HUM RESOUR Economics

940. J HUM RIGHTS Political Science and Other

941. J I ECON Economics

942. J IND ECON Economics

943. J IND ENG MANAG_JIEM Engineering

944. J IND RELAT Interdisciplinary Business

945. J INF KNOWL MANAG Computer Science and Information

Systems

946. J INF SCI Computer Science and Information

Systems

947. J INF TECHNOL Computer Science and Information

Systems

948. J INFORMETR Computer Science and Information

Systems

949. J INST THEOR ECON Economics

950. J INT BUS STUD Business and Other

951. J INT DEV All Others

952. J INT ECON Economics

953. J INT FIN MANAG ACC Business and Other

954. J INT FOOD AGRIBUS M All Others

955. J INT MANAG Business Management

956. J INT MARKETING Business Management

957. J INT MIGR INTEGR Not Indexed

958. J INT RELAT DEV International Affairs

959. J INTELLECT CAP Business Not Indexed

960. J INTERACT MARK Business and Other

961. J INTERNET SERV APPL Computer Science and Information

Systems

962. J KNOWL MANAG Business Management

963. J KOREA TRADE Business Not Indexed

964. J LABOR ECON Economics

965. J LABOR RES Interdisciplinary Business

966. J LAW COURTS Law

967. J LAW ECON Law

207

968. J LAW ECON ORGAN Law

969. J LEADERSH ORG STUD Business Management

970. J LEGAL ANAL Law

971. J LEGAL STUD Law

972. J LEGIS STUD Political Science Not Indexed

973. J MACROMARKETING Business and Other

974. J MANAG DEV Business Management

975. J MANAGE Business Management

976. J MANAGE ENG Engineering

977. J MANAGE INFORM SYST Computer Science and Information

Systems

978. J MANAGE INQUIRY Business Management

979. J MANAGE ISSUES Business Management

980. J MANAGE ORGAN Business Management

981. J MANAGE PSYCHOL Interdisciplinary Business

982. J MANAGE STUD Business Management

983. J MAR SCI TECH_TAIW Engineering

984. J MARK COMMUN Not Indexed

985. J MARKET MANAG Business Not Indexed

986. J MARKETING Business and Other

987. J MARKETING RES Business and Other

988. J MARRIAGE FAM Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

989. J MASS COMMUN Q Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

990. J MASS MEDIA ETHICS Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

991. J MED ETHICS Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

992. J MIX METHOD RES Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

993. J MOD AFR STUD Interdisciplinary

994. J MONEY CREDIT BANK Business and Other

995. J MULTINATL FINANC M Business and Other

996. J NONPROFIT PUBLIC S Not Indexed

997. J NURS ADMIN Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

998. J NURS MANAGE Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

999. J OCCUP ENVIRON MED Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1000. J OCCUP HEALTH Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1001. J OCCUP HEALTH PSYCH Psychology

1002. J OCCUP ORGAN PSYCH Psychology

1003. J OCCUP PSYCHOL Not Indexed

1004. J OPER MANAG Business Management

208

1005. J OPER RES SOC Business Management

1006. J ORG COMP ELECT COM Computer Science and Information

Systems

1007. J ORGAN BEHAV Business Management

1008. J ORGAN CHANGE MANAG Business Management

1009. J ORGAN END USER COM Computer Science and Information

Systems

1010. J PATIENT SAF Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1011. J PEACE RES Political Science and Other

1012. J PERS Psychology

1013. J PERS PSYCHOL Psychology

1014. J PERS SOC PSYCHOL Psychology

1015. J PLAN EDUC RES Education

1016. J POLICY ANAL MANAG Public Administration and Other

1017. J POLIT Political Science

1018. J POLIT ECON Economics

1019. J POLIT LAW Political Science Not Indexed

1020. J POLIT MIL SOCIOL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1021. J POLIT PHILOS Political Science and Other

1022. J POLITICS LATIN AM Political Science Not Indexed

1023. J PROD BRAND MANAG Business Not Indexed

1024. J PROD INNOVAT MANAG Engineering

1025. J PSYCHOL Psychology

1026. J PSYCHOL AFR Psychology

1027. J PUBL ADM RES THEOR Public Administration

1028. J PUBLIC AD IN PRESS Public Administration Not Indexed

1029. J PUBLIC ECON Economics

1030. J PUBLIC ECON THEORY Economics

1031. J PUBLIC HEALTH MAN Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1032. J PUBLIC POLICY Interdis. Public Admin. and Pol.

Science

1033. J PUBLIC POLICY MARK Business and Other

1034. J PUBLIC RELAT RES Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

1035. J PURCH SUPPLY MANAG Business Management

1036. J R STAT SOC A STAT Mathematics and Statistics

1037. J R STAT SOC B Mathematics and Statistics

1038. J RES PERS Psychology

1039. J RETAIL CONSUM SERV Business Not Indexed

1040. J RETAILING Business and Other

1041. J RISK RES Interdisciplinary

209

1042. J ROY STAT SOC A STA Mathematics and Statistics

1043. J ROY STAT SOC D_STA Mathematics and Statistics

1044. J RURAL STUD All Others

1045. J SAFETY RES Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1046. J SCI STUD RELIG Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1047. J SERV MANAGE Business Management

1048. J SERV MARK Business and Other

1049. J SERV RES_US Business and Other

1050. J SERV THEOR PRACT Business and Other

1051. J SMALL BUS MANAGE Business Management

1052. J SOC ISSUES Psychology

1053. J SOC POLICY Public Administration and Other

1054. J SOC PSYCHOL Psychology

1055. J SOC SERV RES All Others

1056. J SOCIOL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1057. J SOFTW_EVOL PROC Computer Science and Information

Systems

1058. J SPAT ORGAN DYN Not Indexed

1059. J SPORT MANAGE Interdisciplinary Business

1060. J SPORT SOC ISSUES Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1061. J STAT PHYS Mathematics and Statistics

1062. J STAT SOFTW Mathematics and Statistics

1063. J STRATEGIC INF SYST Computer Science and Information

Systems

1064. J STRATEGIC STUD Political Science and Other

1065. J STUDY SPORTS ATHL Business Not Indexed

1066. J SUBST ABUSE TREAT Psychology

1067. J SUPPLY CHAIN MANAG Business Management

1068. J SUPREME COURT HIST Political Science Not Indexed

1069. J SUSTAIN TOUR Interdisciplinary Business

1070. J SYST SOFTWARE Computer Science and Information

Systems

1071. J TECHNOL TRANSFER Computer Science and Information

Systems

1072. J THEOR BIOL Environmental Studies

1073. J THEOR POLIT Political Science

1074. J TRANSP GEOGR Interdisciplinary

1075. J TRAVEL RES Interdisciplinary Business

1076. J TRAVEL TOUR MARK Interdisciplinary Business

210

1077. J UNIVERS COMPUT SCI Computer Science and Information

Systems

1078. J URBAN AFF Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1079. J VOCAT BEHAV Psychology

1080. J WOMEN POLIT POLICY Political Science and Other

1081. J WORKPLACE LEARN Business Not Indexed

1082. J WORLD BUS Business and Other

1083. J WORLD TRADE Economics

1084. J YOUTH STUD Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1085. JAMA_J AM MED ASSOC Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1086. JASSS_J ARTIF SOC S Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1087. JCMS_J COMMON MARK S Political Science and Other

1088. JMIR RES PROTOC Business Not Indexed

1089. JOB QUEUES GENDER QU Not Indexed

1090. JOURNALISM Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

1091. JPN ECON REV Economics

1092. JPN J POLIT SCI Political Science

1093. JUDGM DECIS MAK Psychology

1094. JUDICATURE Law

1095. JUDICIAL REV BUREAUC Public Administration Not Indexed

1096. JUSTICE Q Criminal Justice

1097. JUSTICE SYST J Criminal Justice

1098. KNOWL MAN RES PRACT Business Not Indexed

1099. KNOWL_BASED SYST Computer Science and Information

Systems

1100. KOLNER Z SOZIOL SOZ Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1101. KOREA OBS International Affairs

1102. KOREAN J DEF ANAL Business Management

1103. KSCE J CIV ENG Engineering

1104. KYBERNETES Computer Science and Information

Systems

1105. KYKLOS Economics

1106. LABOUR IND Business Not Indexed

1107. LANCET Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1108. LAND USE POLICY Environmental Studies

1109. LAT AM Not Indexed

1110. LAT AM POLIT SOC Political Science and Other

211

1111. LAT AM RES REV All Others

1112. LAW HUMAN BEHAV Law

1113. LAW POLICY Law

1114. LAW SOC REV Law

1115. LAW SOCIAL INQUIRY Law

1116. LEA COMMUN SER Political Science Not Indexed

1117. LEADERSHIP ADM SOCIO Public Administration Not Indexed

1118. LEADERSHIP ORG DEV J Business Management

1119. LEADERSHIP QUART Interdisciplinary Business

1120. LEADERSHIP_LONDON Business Management

1121. LEARN INDIVID DIFFER Psychology

1122. LEARN INSTR Education

1123. LEARN ORGAN Business Not Indexed

1124. LEAS ORG MAN SERIES Business Not Indexed

1125. LECT N MECH ENG Not Indexed

1126. LECT NOTES ARTIF INT Not Indexed

1127. LECT NOTES BUS INF Business Not Indexed

1128. LECT NOTES BUS INF P Business Not Indexed

1129. LECT NOTES COMPUT SC Not Indexed

1130. LEG STUD Law

1131. LEGIS STUD QUART Political Science

1132. LEGISLATIVE LEVIATHA Political Science Not Indexed

1133. LEGISLATIVE POLITICS Political Science Not Indexed

1134. LEX LOCALIS Interdis. Public Admin. and Pol.

Science

1135. LISS 2014 Not Indexed

1136. LOCAL GOV STUD Interdis. Public Admin. and Pol.

Science

1137. LOGIC POLIT SURV Political Science Not Indexed

1138. LOGIC VIOLENCE CIVIL Not Indexed

1139. LONG RANGE PLANN Interdisciplinary Business

1140. MACROPOLITY Political Science Not Indexed

1141. MAGGIORITARIO CASO Political Science Not Indexed

1142. MAKING SCH WORK REVO Not Indexed

1143. MALL WASHINGTON 1791 Not Indexed

1144. MANAG AUDIT J Business Not Indexed

1145. MANAG RES REV Business Not Indexed

1146. MANAG SCI ENG MANAG Engineering

1147. MANAG SERV QUAL Business Management

1148. MANAGE ACCOUNT RES Business Management

1149. MANAGE COMMUN Q Business Management

1150. MANAGE DECIS Business Management

212

1151. MANAGE INT REV Business Management

1152. MANAGE LEARN Business Management

1153. MANAGE ORGAN REV Business Management

1154. MANAGE SCI Business Management

1155. MANAGEMENT Business Management

1156. MANAGING COMPLEX NET Public Administration Not Indexed

1157. MANAGING NETWORKS AD Public Administration Not Indexed

1158. MAPPING POLICY PREFE Political Science Not Indexed

1159. MAR POLICY International Affairs

1160. MARK INTELL PLAN Business Not Indexed

1161. MARK SCI INN EC DEV Business Not Indexed

1162. MARKET LETT Business Not Indexed

1163. MARKET SCI Business and Other

1164. MARKETING THEOR Business and Other

1165. MASS COMMUN SOC Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

1166. MATH SOC SCI Mathematics and Statistics

1167. MATTER FAITH RELIG 2 Not Indexed

1168. MEASURING PERFORMANC Public Administration Not Indexed

1169. MED CARE Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1170. MED CARE RES REV Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1171. MEDIA CULT SOC Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1172. MERGERS ACQUIS Business Not Indexed

1173. METAL INT Engineering

1174. METHODOLOGY_EUR Psychology

1175. METROPOLITAN GOVERNA Public Administration Not Indexed

1176. MEX EV DEM COMP Not Indexed

1177. MICH LAW REV Law

1178. MIDDLE EAST POLICY International Affairs

1179. MIL MED Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1180. MIL PSYCHOL Psychology

1181. MILBANK Q Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1182. MILLENNIUM_J INT ST International Affairs

1183. MINERVA Education

1184. MINN LAW REV Law

1185. MIS Q EXEC Interdisciplinary Business

1186. MIS QUART Computer Science and Information

Systems

1187. MIT SLOAN MANAGE REV Business Management

1188. MOBILIZATION Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

213

1189. MOBILIZATION PARTICI Political Science Not Indexed

1190. MOD CORPORATION P Business Not Indexed

1191. MOD HOSP Not Indexed

1192. MORTGAGE BANKING Business Not Indexed

1193. MOTIV EMOTION Psychology

1194. MOTIVATION PUBLIC MA Public Administration Not Indexed

1195. MPLUS USERS GUIDE Not Indexed

1196. MULTILEVEL THEOR RE Not Indexed

1197. MULTIPLE REGRESSION Not Indexed

1198. MULTITEAM SYST OR Not Indexed

1199. MULTIVAR BEHAV RES Not Indexed

1200. NAT CLIM CHANGE Environmental Studies

1201. NAT HAZARDS Environmental Studies

1202. NAT HAZARDS REV Environmental Studies

1203. NAT ORIGINS MASS Not Indexed

1204. NATIONS NATL Interdisciplinary

1205. NATL BUR EC RES W Business Not Indexed

1206. NATL CIVIC REV Public Administration Not Indexed

1207. NATL MUNICIPAL REV Public Administration Not Indexed

1208. NATL TAX J Economics

1209. NATURALISTIC INQUIRY Not Indexed

1210. NEBR SYM MOTIV Psychology

1211. NEGOT CONFL MANAG R Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

1212. NEGOTIATION J Business Management

1213. NETW SCI Not Indexed

1214. NEW DIRECTIONS PHILA Public Administration Not Indexed

1215. NEW ENGL ECON REV Economics

1216. NEW ENGL J MED Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1217. NEW GER CRIT Not Indexed

1218. NEW HORIZ INT BUS Business and Other

1219. NEW I ORG ANAL Public Administration Not Indexed

1220. NEW MEDIA SOC Communication and interdisciplinary

communication

1221. NEW MEDIT Environmental Studies

1222. NEW POLIT ECON Political Science and Other

1223. NEW TECH BAS FIRM NE Business Not Indexed

1224. NEW TECH WORK EMPLOY Business Management

1225. NEW YORK TIMES Not Indexed

1226. NEW YORK TIMES MAG Not Indexed

1227. NEW YORK U LAW REV Law

1228. NEW YORKER Not Indexed

214

1229. NISPACEE J PUBLIC AD Not Indexed

1230. NON_TRADITIONAL Not Indexed

1231. NONPROF VOLUNT SEC Q Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1232. NONPROFIT MANAG LEAD Public Administration and Other

1233. NONPROFIT MANAGE Public Administration Not Indexed

1234. NONPROFIT SECTOR RES Public Administration Not Indexed

1235. NORD J WORKING LIFE Business Not Indexed

1236. NORTHWEST U LAW REV Law

1237. NOTRE DAME LAW REV Law

1238. OMEGA_INT J MANAGE S Business Management

1239. ONLINE INFORM REV Computer Science and Information

Systems

1240. OPER MANAGE RES Business Management

1241. ORG ACTION Not Indexed

1242. ORG ECOL Not Indexed

1243. ORGAN BEHAV HUM DEC Psychology

1244. ORGAN DYN Interdisciplinary Business

1245. ORGAN ENVIRON Business Management

1246. ORGAN PSYCHOL REV Interdisciplinary Business

1247. ORGAN RES METHODS Interdisciplinary Business

1248. ORGAN SCI Business Management

1249. ORGAN STUD Business Management

1250. ORGANIZATION Business Management

1251. ORGANIZATIONS Business Not Indexed

1252. OSTERR Z POLITWISS Political Science Not Indexed

1253. OTTO HINTZE GEIST EP Not Indexed

1254. OXFORD ECON PAP Law

1255. OXFORD HDB AM BUREAU Public Administration Not Indexed

1256. OXFORD HDB CORPORATE Business Not Indexed

1257. OXFORD HDB POLITICAL Political Science Not Indexed

1258. OXFORD HDB POSITIVE Business Not Indexed

1259. OXFORD HDB PUBLIC MA Public Administration Not Indexed

1260. OXFORD J LEGAL STUD Law

1261. OXFORD REV ECON POL Economics

1262. P 1 INT C SUST Not Indexed

1263. P 10 EUR C EG Not Indexed

1264. P 11 EUR C KNOWL Not Indexed

1265. P 11 W LAK INT C Not Indexed

1266. P 15 EUR C EG Not Indexed

1267. P 2 EUR C INT CAP Not Indexed

1268. P 2 INT FOR STAND Not Indexed

215

1269. P 2009 ACAD MARK Not Indexed

1270. P 2010 INT C BUS EC Not Indexed

1271. P 2010 INT C HUM Not Indexed

1272. P 2010 INT C INN Not Indexed

1273. P 2010 INT C LOG Not Indexed

1274. P 2010 INT C PUBL Not Indexed

1275. P 4 EUR C INF MAN EV Not Indexed

1276. P 5 EUR C INN ENTR Not Indexed

1277. P 5 INT C COOP PROM Not Indexed

1278. P 5 INT C PROD INN Not Indexed

1279. P 6 EUR C ENV CSR Not Indexed

1280. P 9 EUR C RES METH Not Indexed

1281. P ANN HICSS Not Indexed

1282. P INT C INF MAN EV Not Indexed

1283. P INT C SMALL MED Not Indexed

1284. P INT FOR KNOWL AS Not Indexed

1285. P KNOWL MAN 5 INT C Not Indexed

1286. P NATL ACAD SCI USA Not Indexed

1287. P ROY SOC B_BIOL SCI Not Indexed

1288. PAC ACCOUNT REV Business Not Indexed

1289. PAC FOCUS International Affairs

1290. PAC REV International Affairs

1291. PAC_BASIN FINANC J Business Not Indexed

1292. PAIN Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1293. PAP REG SCI Not Indexed

1294. PAP SCI ADM Public Administration Not Indexed

1295. PAP W WILSON Public Administration Not Indexed

1296. PARLIAMENT AFF Political Science

1297. PARTISAN SORT LIBERA Not Indexed

1298. PARTY POLIT Political Science

1299. PERS INDIV DIFFER Psychology

1300. PERS PSYCHOL Interdisciplinary Business

1301. PERS REV Interdisciplinary Business

1302. PERS SOC PSYCHOL B Psychology

1303. PERS SOC PSYCHOL REV Psychology

1304. PERSPECT CIENC INF Computer Science and Information

Systems

1305. PERSPECT POLIT Political Science

1306. PERSPECT PSYCHOL SCI Psychology

1307. PERSPECTIVES CORPORA Business Not Indexed

1308. PERSPECTIVES POLITIC Political Science Not Indexed

1309. PHILOS PUBLIC AFF Political Science and Other

216

1310. PHILOS T R SOC B Not Indexed

1311. PICMET 2010 TECHN Not Indexed

1312. PLAN THEOR All Others

1313. PLOS ONE Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1314. POETICS Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1315. POETICS TODAY All Others

1316. POL SOCIOL REV Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1317. POLARIZED AM DANCE I Not Indexed

1318. POLIC_J POLICY PRACT Public Administration Not Indexed

1319. POLICE Q Criminal Justice

1320. POLICE Q Criminal Justice

1321. POLICING Criminal Justice

1322. POLICY POLIT Interdis. Public Admin. and Pol.

Science

1323. POLICY SCI Public Administration and Other

1324. POLICY SOC Interdis. Public Admin. and Pol.

Science

1325. POLICY STUD J Interdis. Public Admin. and Pol.

Science

1326. POLICY STUD_UK Public Administration

1327. POLIS_J SOC GREEK PO Political Science Not Indexed

1328. POLIT ANAL Political Science

1329. POLIT BEHAV Political Science

1330. POLIT COMMUN Political Science and Other

1331. POLIT EC PUBLIC Political Science Not Indexed

1332. POLIT GENDER Political Science and Other

1333. POLIT GEOGR Political Science and Other

1334. POLIT GOB Political Science

1335. POLIT GROUPS IDENTIT Political Science Not Indexed

1336. POLIT PHILOS ECON Political Science and Other

1337. POLIT PSYCHOL Political Science and Other

1338. POLIT RELIG Political Science

1339. POLIT REPRESENTA Political Science Not Indexed

1340. POLIT RES QUART Political Science

1341. POLIT SCI Political Science

1342. POLIT SCI QUART Political Science

1343. POLIT SCI STATE Political Science

1344. POLIT SOC Interdis. Public Admin. and Pol.

Science

1345. POLIT STUD REV Political Science

217

1346. POLIT STUD_LONDON Political Science

1347. POLIT THEORY Political Science

1348. POLIT VIERTELJAHR Political Science

1349. POLITICIANS BUREAUCR Public Administration Not Indexed

1350. POLITICS BUREAUCRACY Public Administration Not Indexed

1351. POLITICS EC WELFARE Political Science Not Indexed

1352. POLITICS GOV Political Science Not Indexed

1353. POLITICS POLICY Political Science Not Indexed

1354. POLITICS PRESIDENTIA Political Science Not Indexed

1355. POLITICS_OXFORD Political Science

1356. POLITIKON_UK Political Science

1357. POLITIX Political Science

1358. POLITY Political Science

1359. POLITY 4 PROJECT POL Political Science Not Indexed

1360. POSITIVE ORG SCHOLAR Not Indexed

1361. POST_SOV AFF Political Science and Other

1362. POWER ORG Business Not Indexed

1363. PRES STUD Q Political Science Not Indexed

1364. PRESIDENTIAL STUD Political Science Not Indexed

1365. PRESIDENTIALISM DEMO Political Science Not Indexed

1366. PROBL EKOROZW Environmental Studies

1367. PROBL POST_COMMUNISM Political Science

1368. PROC CIRP Not Indexed

1369. PROC ECON FINANC Not Indexed

1370. PROC EUR CONF INTELL Business Not Indexed

1371. PROCD SOC BEHV Not Indexed

1372. PROCEDIA COMPUT SCI Computer Science and Information

Systems

1373. PROD OPER MANAG Business Management

1374. PROD PLAN CONTROL Not Indexed

1375. PROF GEOGR All Others

1376. PROF PSYCHOL_RES PR Psychology

1377. PROJ MANAG J Business Management

1378. PS_POLIT SCI POLIT Political Science

1379. PSICOTHEMA Psychology

1380. PSYCHOL AESTHET CREA Psychology

1381. PSYCHOL BULL Psychology

1382. PSYCHOL INQ Psychology

1383. PSYCHOL INTERGROUP R Not Indexed

1384. PSYCHOL MARKET Psychology

1385. PSYCHOL METHODS Psychology

1386. PSYCHOL REP Psychology

218

1387. PSYCHOL REV Psychology

1388. PSYCHOL RUNDSCH Psychology

1389. PSYCHOL SCI Psychology

1390. PSYCHOL SCI PUBL INT Psychology

1391. PSYCHOL SPORT EXERC Psychology

1392. PSYCHOL TRAV ORGAN Psychology

1393. PSYCHOL WOMEN QUART Psychology

1394. PUBLIC ADMIN Interdis. Public Admin. and Pol.

Science

1395. PUBLIC ADMIN DEVELOP Public Administration and Other

1396. PUBLIC ADMIN Q Public Administration Not Indexed

1397. PUBLIC ADMIN REV Public Administration

1398. PUBLIC BUDG FINANC Public Administration Not Indexed

1399. PUBLIC BUDGETING FIN Public Administration Not Indexed

1400. PUBLIC CHOICE Political Science and Other

1401. PUBLIC INTEGRITY Public Administration Not Indexed

1402. PUBLIC LAW Public Administration Not Indexed

1403. PUBLIC MANAG REV Public Administration

1404. PUBLIC MANAGE Public Administration Not Indexed

1405. PUBLIC MANAGE OR Public Administration Not Indexed

1406. PUBLIC MONEY MANAGE Public Administration

1407. PUBLIC OPIN QUART Political Science and Other

1408. PUBLIC PAP PRESID Political Science Not Indexed

1409. PUBLIC PERFORM MANAG Public Administration

1410. PUBLIC PERFORMANCE M Public Administration Not Indexed

1411. PUBLIC PERS MANAGE Public Administration

1412. PUBLIC POLICY Public Administration Not Indexed

1413. PUBLIC POLICY ADM Public Administration Not Indexed

1414. PUBLIC POLICY ADMIN Public Administration Not Indexed

1415. PUBLIC PRODUCTIVITY Public Administration Not Indexed

1416. PUBLIC RELAT REV Business and Other

1417. PUBLIC SERVICE PERFO Public Administration Not Indexed

1418. PUBLIC UNDERST SCI Political Science Not Indexed

1419. PUBLIC VALUE THEORY Public Administration Not Indexed

1420. PUBLIC VALUES PUBLIC Public Administration Not Indexed

1421. PUBLIUS J FEDERALISM Political Science

1422. PUNISHM SOC Criminal Justice

1423. PURSUIT PERFORMANCE Public Administration Not Indexed

1424. Q J ECON Economics

1425. Q J POLIT SCI Political Science

1426. QME_QUANT MARK ECON Interdisciplinary Business

1427. QUAL DATA ANA Not Indexed

219

1428. QUAL HEALTH RES Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1429. QUAL QUANT Mathematics and Statistics

1430. QUAL SAF HEALTH CARE Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1431. QUAL SOCIOL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1432. QUEST Interdisciplinary Business

1433. QUICKER BETTER CHEAP Not Indexed

1434. R&D MANAGE Business Management

1435. RACIALIZED POLITICS Political Science Not Indexed

1436. RAE_REV ADMIN EMPRES Business Management

1437. RAND J ECON Economics

1438. RATION SOC Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1439. RBGN_REV BRAS GEST N Business Management

1440. REASONING CHOICE EXP Political Science Not Indexed

1441. REFLEX POLITICA Political Science Not Indexed

1442. REG STUD Economics

1443. REGRESSION MODELS CA Not Indexed

1444. REGUL GOV Interdis. Public Admin. and Pol.

Science

1445. REINVENTING GOV ENT Public Administration Not Indexed

1446. RELAT IND_IND RELAT Interdisciplinary Business

1447. RELIAB ENG SYST SAFE Engineering

1448. RENEW SUST ENERG REV Not Indexed

1449. RES EMOTION ORGAN Psychology

1450. RES EVALUAT Not Indexed

1451. RES HIGH EDUC Education

1452. RES MANAGING GROUPS Not Indexed

1453. RES ORGAN BEHAV Interdisciplinary Business

1454. RES PERS H Not Indexed

1455. RES PERSONNEL HUMAN Not Indexed

1456. RES POLICY Interdisciplinary Business

1457. RES SOC ORG Not Indexed

1458. RES SOC STRAT MOBIL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1459. RES SOCIOL ORG Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1460. RES SOCIOL ORG PR Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1461. RES TECHNOL MANAGE Computer Science and Information

Systems

1462. RESOUR CONSERV RECY Not Indexed

220

1463. RESOUR ENERGY ECON Economics

1464. RESOUR POLICY Environmental Studies

1465. RETHINKING DEMOCRATI Public Administration Not Indexed

1466. RETHINKING SOC IN Not Indexed

1467. REV ACCOUNT STUD Business and Other

1468. REV AFR POLIT ECON Political Science and Other

1469. REV ANTHROPOL CONNAI Not Indexed

1470. REV BRAS POLIT INT Political Science and Other

1471. REV CERCET INTERV SO Economics

1472. REV CIENC POLIT_SANT Political Science

1473. REV CLAD REFORMA DEM Interdis. Public Admin. and Pol.

Science

1474. REV CONTAB Not Indexed

1475. REV ECON DES Economics

1476. REV ECON POLIT Political Science and Other

1477. REV ECON STAT Economics

1478. REV ECON STUD Economics

1479. REV ELECTRON GEST ED Computer Science and Information

Systems

1480. REV ESP FINANC CONTA Business and Other

1481. REV ESP INVESTIG SOC Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1482. REV ESTUD POLIT Political Science

1483. REV FINANC STUD Business and Other

1484. REV FR SOCIOL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1485. REV GEN PSYCHOL Psychology

1486. REV GEST AMBIENT SUS Not Indexed

1487. REV HIGH EDUC Education

1488. REV INT ORGAN Political Science and Other

1489. REV INT PME Not Indexed

1490. REV INT POLIT ECON Political Science and Other

1491. REV INT SOCIOL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1492. REV INT STUD International Affairs

1493. REV LAT AM PSICOL Psychology

1494. REV MANAG SCI Business Management

1495. Rev Metrop Sustentab Public Administration Not Indexed

1496. REV POLICY RES Interdis. Public Admin. and Pol.

Science

1497. REV POLIT Political Science Not Indexed

1498. REV PSICOL SOC Interdisciplinary Business

221

1499. REV PUBLIC PERS ADM Public Administration

1500. REV PUBLIC PERSONNEL Public Administration

1501. REV QUANT FINANC ACC Business and Other

1502. REV RADICAL POL ECON Economics

1503. REV RELIG RES Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1504. REV VENEZ GERENC Business Management

1505. RISK ANAL Mathematics and Statistics

1506. RISK MANAG_UK Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1507. ROLE TRANSITIONS ORG Business Not Indexed

1508. ROM J ECON FORECAST Economics

1509. ROM J POLIT SCI Political Science

1510. ROUT CONT CHINA SERI Political Science Not Indexed

1511. ROUT EXPL ENVIRO ECO Political Science Not Indexed

1512. ROUT RES COMP POLI Political Science Not Indexed

1513. ROUT ST GLOB COMPET Business Not Indexed

1514. ROUTL FR POLIT ECON Political Science Not Indexed

1515. ROUTLEDGE/ECPR STUD Political Science Not Indexed

1516. S Not Indexed

1517. S AFR J BUS MANAG Business Management

1518. S AFR J ECON MANAG S Business Management

1519. S AFR J EDUC Education

1520. S EUR SOC POLIT Political Science and Other

1521. SA J IND PSYCHOL Psychology

1522. SAFETY SCI Engineering

1523. SAGE HANDB ORG I Business Not Indexed

1524. SAGE HDB ORG STUDIES Business Not Indexed

1525. SAGE OPEN Not Indexed

1526. SANTE PUBLIQUE Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1527. SCAND J MANAG Business Management

1528. SCAND J PSYCHOL Psychology

1529. SCAND J PUBLIC HEALT Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1530. SCAND J WORK ENV HEA Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1531. SCAND POLIT STUD Political Science

1532. SCH EFF SCH IMPROV Education

1533. SCI COMMUN Political Science and Other

1534. SCI COMPUT PROGRAM Computer Science and Information

Systems

1535. SCI ENG ETHICS Engineering

1536. SCI PUBL POLICY Interdis. Public Admin. and Pol.

Science

222

1537. SCI REP_UK Environmental Studies

1538. SCI TECHN HUM BUS Computer Science and Information

Systems

1539. SCI TECHNOL SOC Business Management

1540. SCI TOTAL ENVIRON Environmental Studies

1541. SCIENCE Environmental Studies

1542. SCIENTOMETRICS Computer Science and Information

Systems

1543. SE EUR BLACK SEA STU All Others

1544. SECUR GOVERN Political Science Not Indexed

1545. SECUR STUD International Affairs

1546. SELF ORG FEDERALISM Public Administration Not Indexed

1547. SEMIPARAMETRIC REGRE Not Indexed

1548. SEMISOVEREIGN PEOPLE Not Indexed

1549. SENSEMAKING ORG Business Not Indexed

1550. SER OPER SUPP CH MAN Business Not Indexed

1551. SERV BUS Business Management

1552. SERV IND J Business Management

1553. SERV SCI Business Management

1554. SEX ROLES Psychology

1555. SHS WEB CONF Not Indexed

1556. SIGMIS CPR 10 P Not Indexed

1557. SILVA FENN Environmental Studies

1558. SLEEP Psychology

1559. SLOAN MANAGE REV Business Management

1560. SMALL BUS ECON Interdisciplinary Business

1561. SMALL GR RES Psychology

1562. SMALL STATES WORLD M Political Science Not Indexed

1563. SMALL WAR INSUR Not Indexed

1564. SOC ANIM Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1565. SOC BEHAV PERSONAL Psychology

1566. SOC CHOICE WELFARE Economics

1567. SOC COGNITION Psychology

1568. SOC CONSTRUCTION Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1569. SOC FORCES Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1570. SOC IDENTITY PROC Not Indexed

1571. SOC INDIC RES Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1572. SOC INFLUENCE Psychology

223

1573. SOC JUSTICE RES Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1574. SOC MOVEMENT STUD Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1575. SOC MOVEMENTS ORG Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1576. SOC NATUR RESOUR Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1577. SOC NETWORK ANAL Not Indexed

1578. SOC NETWORKS Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1579. SOC POLICY ADMIN Public Administration and Other

1580. SOC PROBL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1581. SOC PSYCHOL ORG Psychology

1582. SOC PSYCHOL PERS SCI Psychology

1583. SOC PSYCHOL QUART Psychology

1584. SOC SCI COMPUT REV Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1585. SOC SCI HIST All Others

1586. SOC SCI INFORM Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1587. SOC SCI J Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1588. SOC SCI MED Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1589. SOC SCI QUART Political Science and Other

1590. SOC SCI RES Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1591. SOC SERV REV All Others

1592. SOC STUD SCI All Others

1593. SOC THEOR HEALTH Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1594. SOCIO_ECON REV Political Science and Other

1595. SOCIOL CAS Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1596. SOCIOL COMPASS Not Indexed

1597. SOCIOL EDUC Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1598. SOCIOL FORUM Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1599. SOCIOL INQ Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1600. SOCIOL METHOD RES Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

224

1601. SOCIOL METHODOL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1602. SOCIOL PERSPECT Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1603. SOCIOL QUART Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1604. SOCIOL REV Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1605. SOCIOL SPECTRUM Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1606. SOCIOL THEOR Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1607. SOCIOLOGIA_BRATISLAV Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1608. SOCIOLOGY Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1609. SOTSIOL ISSLED+ Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1610. SOUTH CALIF LAW REV Law

1611. SOUTH ECON J Economics

1612. SPAN J FINANC ACCOUN Business and Other

1613. SPAN J PSYCHOL Psychology

1614. SPORT EXERC PERFORM Psychology

1615. SPORT MANAG REV Interdisciplinary Business

1616. ST ANTONY SER Not Indexed

1617. STAND CATALOG AM Not Indexed

1618. STANFORD LAW REV Law

1619. STAT BUDG PROC Public Administration Not Indexed

1620. STAT MED Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1621. STAT SCI Mathematics and Statistics

1622. STATE LOCAL GOVT REV Public Administration Not Indexed

1623. STATE NONPROFIT AM Public Administration Not Indexed

1624. STATE POLIT POLICY Q Political Science

1625. STATEHOUSE

DEMOCRACY

Political Science Not Indexed

1626. STRATEG ENTREP J Business Management

1627. STRATEG ORGAN Business Management

1628. STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP Business Not Indexed

1629. STRATEGIC MANAGE Business Management

1630. STRATEGIC MANAGE J Business Management

1631. STRATEGIC PLANNING P Not Indexed

1632. STREET LEVEL BUREAUC Public Administration Not Indexed

1633. STRESS HEALTH Psychology

225

1634. STRUCT EQU MODELING Mathematics and Statistics

1635. STRUCT HOLES SOC Not Indexed

1636. STUD AM POLIT DEV Political Science

1637. STUD COMP INT DEV Political Science and Other

1638. STUD CONFL TERROR Political Science and Other

1639. STUD ETHNO_MED Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1640. STUD HIGH EDUC Education

1641. STUD MANAG FINANC AC Business Not Indexed

1642. STUD PUBLIC OPINI Political Science Not Indexed

1643. STUD TERRIT CULT DIV Not Indexed

1644. SUPPLY CHAIN MANAG Business Management

1645. SUPREME COURT REV Law

1646. SUSTAIN ACCOUNT MANA Business Management

1647. SUSTAIN DEV Environmental Studies

1648. SUSTAINABILITY_BASEL Environmental Studies

1649. SUSTAINABLE PEACE PO Not Indexed

1650. SWISS POLIT SCI REV Political Science

1651. SYST PRACT ACT RES Business Management

1652. SYST RES BEHAV SCI Interdisciplinary Business

1653. SYSTEMS ENG Engineering

1654. TEACH COLL REC Education

1655. TEACH HIGH EDUC Education

1656. TEACH TEACH EDUC Education

1657. TECH REP Not Indexed

1658. TECHNOL ANAL STRATEG Computer Science and Information

Systems

1659. TECHNOL FORECAST SOC Interdisciplinary Business

1660. TECHNOL HEALTH CARE Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1661. TECHNOL INNOV MANAG Business Not Indexed

1662. TECHNOVATION Business Management

1663. TEH VJESN Engineering

1664. TELECOMMUN POLICY All Others

1665. TELEMAT INFORM Computer Science and Information

Systems

1666. TERROR POLIT VIOLENC Political Science and Other

1667. TEX LAW REV Law

1668. THEOR BIOSCI Environmental Studies

1669. THEOR DECIS Economics

1670. THEOR ECON Economics

1671. THEOR PRACT HOSP Not Indexed

226

1672. THEOR SOC Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1673. THEORIES POLICY PROC Public Administration Not Indexed

1674. THESIS Not Indexed

1675. THESIS HARVARD U Not Indexed

1676. THESIS U CALIF Not Indexed

1677. THIRD WORLD Q All Others

1678. THUNDERBIRD INT BUS Business Management

1679. TIDSSKR SAMFUNNSFOR Not Indexed

1680. TIME Not Indexed

1681. TIME SOC Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1682. TOOLS GOV Public Administration Not Indexed

1683. TOOLS GOV GUIDE NEW Public Administration Not Indexed

1684. TOTAL QUAL MANAG BUS Business Management

1685. TOUR HOSP RES Interdisciplinary Business

1686. TOURISM ECON Economics

1687. TOURISM MANAGE Interdisciplinary Business

1688. TRANSFORM BUS ECON Business and Other

1689. TRANSFORMATION GOVER Public Administration Not Indexed

1690. TRANSPORT J Business Management

1691. TRANSPORT POLICY Economics

1692. TRANSPORT RES E_LOG Engineering

1693. TRANSPORT REV All Others

1694. TRANSYLV REV ADM SCI Public Administration

1695. TRIBES STATES FORMAT Not Indexed

1696. TRIMEST ECON Economics

1697. TURK ONLINE J EDUC T Education

1698. TURK PSIKOL DERG Psychology

1699. TURK STUD All Others

1700. TWIN RES HUM GENET Not Indexed

1701. U CHICAGO LAW REV Law

1702. U ILLINOIS LAW REV Law

1703. U PENN LAW REV Law

1704. UCLA LAW REV Law

1705. ULUSLAR ILISKILER International Affairs

1706. UN KINGD Not Indexed

1707. UNDERSTANDING MANAGI Business Not Indexed

1708. UNIVERSIA BUS REV Business and Other

1709. URBAN AFF REV Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1710. URBAN EDUC Education

227

1711. URBAN POLICY RES Environmental Studies

1712. URBAN STUD Environmental Studies

1713. USING POSITIVE LENS Business Not Indexed

1714. VA LAW REV Law

1715. VANDERBILT LAW REV Law

1716. VOICE EQUALITY CIVIC Political Science Not Indexed

1717. VOLUNTAS Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1718. VOTING Political Science Not Indexed

1719. WALL STREET J Not Indexed

1720. WASH LAW REV Law

1721. WASH POST Not Indexed

1722. WASTE MANAGE Engineering

1723. WATER POLICY Environmental Studies

1724. WEST EUR POLIT Political Science

1725. WESTERN J NURS RES Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1726. WESTERN POLIT QUART Political Science Not Indexed

1727. WHAT AM KNOW POLITIC Political Science Not Indexed

1728. WHAT DO WE KNOW WAR Political Science Not Indexed

1729. WHISTLEBLOWING AUST Public Administration Not Indexed

1730. WHO VOTES Political Science Not Indexed

1731. WHY PEOPLE DONT TRUS Political Science Not Indexed

1732. WILDLIFE BIOL Environmental Studies

1733. WOMEN STUD INT FORUM All Others

1734. WORK Health Care, Occup. Health; Medical

1735. WORK AGING RETIRE Business Not Indexed

1736. WORK EMPLOY SOC Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1737. WORK MOTIV Business Not Indexed

1738. WORK OCCUPATION Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1739. WORK STRESS Business Not Indexed

1740. WORKING PAP Not Indexed

1741. WORKING SHIRKING SAB Business Not Indexed

1742. WORLD BANK ECON REV Economics

1743. WORLD BANK RES OBSER Economics

1744. WORLD DEV Economics

1745. WORLD DEV IND Not Indexed

1746. WORLD ECON Economics

1747. WORLD POLIT International Affairs

1748. WORLD TRADE REV Economics

1749. YALE LAW J Law

228

1750. Z ARB ORGAN Psychology

1751. Z ERZIEHWISS Education

1752. Z PERSONALFORSCH Business Management

1753. Z PERSONALPSYCHOL Psychology

1754. Z SOZIOL Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social

Sciences

1755. ZB RAD EKON FAK RIJE Interdisciplinary Business

229

Appendix E: Journal Tables Measuring Citations for Public Administration, Political

Science, and Business Management for 2005 and 2010

Table E-1. Public Administration Journals--Incoming Ties 2005 (measuring citations of other


JPART PAR ARPA



Other than Public

Administration

Political Science + 9 0.046 29 0.049 0 0

Business Management 0 0 22 0.037 0 0


Psychology 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sociology 6 0.03 60 0.102 0 0

Law 0 0 0 0 0 0

Economics 0 0 0 0 0 0




Information Systems

6 0.03 28 0.047 12 0.261


Health, and Medical

0 0 6 0.01 0 0


Environmental Studies 0 0 0 0 0 0



Math & Statistics 0 0 0 0 0 0


Not indexed 0 0 14 0.024 0 0

Total 197 0.999 591 1 46 1


230

Table E-2. Public Administration Journals--Outgoing Ties 2005 (measuring citations of


JPART PAR ARPA



Other than Public

Administration




Psychology 14 0.028 0 0 0 0

Sociology 31 0.062 22 0.035 15 0.066

Law 0 0 23 0.037 0 0

Economics 17 0.034 5 0.008 0 0




Information Systems

0 0 0 0 0 0

Health Care,


Medical

0 0 5 0.008 0 0





Math & Statistics 6 0.012 0 0 0 0


Not indexed 12 0.024 101 0.163 0 0

Total 500 1 620 0.999 228 1.001

Ratio 0.39 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.20 1.00


Ratio of others 0.08 0.55 0.21

231

Table E-3 Political Science Journals--Incoming Ties 2005(measuring citations of other


AJPS APSR POL ANAL




Science

Public Administration + 128 0.051 176 0.047 0 0

Business Management 10 0.004 15 0.004 0 0


Psychology 5 0.002 35 0.009 0 0

Sociology 114 0.046 234 0.062 0 0

Law 208 0.083 313 0.083 0 0

Economics 48 0.019 249 0.066 0 0




Information Systems

0 0 0 0 0 0


Health, and Medical

0 0 0 0 0 0

Education 0 0 5 0.001 0 0


Communication 42 0.017 60 0.016 0 0



All Others 0 0 42 0.011 0 0

Not indexed 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 2497 1 3749 0.999 84 1


232

Table E-4. Political Science Journals--Outgoing Ties 2005 (measuring citations of these


AJPS APSR POL ANAL




Science

Public

Administration +

7 0.007 7 0.014 0 0

Business

Management

0 0 0 0 0 0


Psychology 30 0.031 10 0.02 0 0

Sociology 20 0.021 6 0.012 0 0

Law 5 0.005 0 0 0 0

Economics 82 0.086 65 0.132 25 0.109

International

Relations

74 0.077 82 0.167 0 0



Information Systems

0 0 0 0 0 0

Health Care,

Occupational Health,

and Medical

0 0 0 0 5 0.022


Environmental

Studies

0 0 6 0.012 0 0



Math & Statistics 5 0.005 13 0.026 31 0.135


Not indexed 16 0.017 26 0.053 20 0.087

Total 958 0.999 492 0.999 230 1.001

Ratio 2.61 1.00 7.62 1.00 0.37 1.00



233

Table E-5. Business Management Journals--Incoming Ties 2005 (measuring citations of other


ACAD MANAGE

REV

ACAD MANAGE J ADMIN SCI Q



Other than Business

Management


Political Science + 5 0.001 0 0 10 0.002


Psychology 314 0.057 513 0.086 222 0.045

Sociology 116 0.021 88 0.015 273 0.055

Law 41 0.007 10 0.002 33 0.007

Economics 39 0.007 22 0.004 76 0.015


Engineering 132 0.024 129 0.022 136 0.027


Information Systems

381 0.069 276 0.046 273 0.055


Health, and Medical

32 0.006 62 0.01 62 0.012

Education 5 0.001 7 0.001 40 0.008


Communication 53 0.01 83 0.014 72 0.014


Math & Statistics 0 0 0 0 5 0.001

All Others 31 0.006 5 0.001 15 0.003

Not indexed 52 0.009 40 0.007 53 0.011

Total 5496 0.998 5984 1.002 4969 0.999


234

Table E-6. Business Management Journals --Outgoing Ties 2005 (measuring citations of these


ACAD MANAGE

REV

ACAD MANAGE

J

ADMIN SCI Q



Other than Business

Management

Public Administration + 8 0.005 0 0 0 0



Psychology 377 0.222 224 0.105 49 0.055

Sociology 97 0.057 145 0.068 190 0.215

Law 20 0.012 0 0 0 0

Economics 94 0.055 97 0.045 38 0.043

International Relations 5 0.003 0 0 0 0



Information Systems

0 0 0 0 0 0


Health, and Medical

8 0.005 0 0 7 0.008


Environmental Studies 11 0.006 0 0 0 0




All Others 8 0.005 0 0 0 0

Not indexed 18 0.011 112 0.052 114 0.129

Total 1699 1.001 2141 1.001 885 1

Ratio 3.23 1.00 2.79 1.00 5.61 1.00



235

Table E-7. Public Administration Journals--Incoming Ties 2010 (measuring citations of other


JPART PAR ARPA



Other than Public

Administration




Psychology 0 0 40 0.021 0 0

Sociology 36 0.044 65 0.034 25 0.107

Law 0 0 0 0 0 0

Economics 0 0 36 0.019 0 0




Information Systems

7 0.009 0 0 9 0.039


Health, and Medical

0 0 0 0 0 0

Education 0 0 7 0.004 0 0

Environmental Studies 0 0 14 0.007 10 0.043





Not indexed 25 0.03 142 0.075 6 0.026

Total 822 1 1896 0.999 233 1


236

Table E-8. Public Administration Journals--Outgoing Ties 2010 (measuring citations of these


JPART PAR ARPA


Public Administration+ 587 0.481 1196 0.653 498 0.674

Other than Public

Administration




Psychology 19 0.016 15 0.008 5 0.007

Sociology 52 0.043 124 0.068 60 0.081

Law 18 0.015 7 0.004 0 0

Economics 69 0.057 31 0.017 20 0.027

International Relations 0 0 5 0.003 0 0

Engineering 0 0 5 0.003 0 0


Information Systems

0 0 73 0.04 0 0


Health, and Medical

10 0.008 18 0.01 0 0

Education 0 0 5 0.003 0 0

Environmental Studies 0 0 5 0.003 0 0

Communication 0 0 7 0.004 0 0

Criminal Justice 0 0 12 0.007 0 0


All Others 14 0.011 11 0.006 5 0.007

Not indexed 12 0.01 90 0.049 18 0.024

Total 1221 1.001 1830 1.002 738 0.998


Ratio 0.67 1.00 1.04 1.00 0.32 1.00


237

Table E-9. Political Science Journals--Incoming Ties 2010(measuring citations of other


AJPS APSR POL ANAL




Science

Public Administration+ 244 0.056 364 0.06 0 0



Psychology 63 0.014 58 0.01 0 0

Sociology 213 0.048 307 0.051 10 0.018

Law 203 0.046 281 0.046 11 0.02

Economics 162 0.037 427 0.07 0 0




Information Systems

0 0 0 0 0 0

Health Care,


Medical

0 0 14 0.002 7 0.013

Education 41 0.009 46 0.008 6 0.011


Communication 74 0.017 66 0.011 0 0


Math & Statistics 22 0.005 27 0.004 10 0.018

All Others 22 0.005 43 0.007 0 0

Not indexed 0 0 38 0.006 0 0

Total 4438 1.001 6064 1 553 1.001


238

Table E-10. Political Science Journals--Outgoing Ties 2010 (measuring citations of these


AJPS APSR POL ANAL




Science

Public Administration + 0 0 0 0 0 0

Business Management 0 0 0 0 0 0


Psychology 26 0.022 63 0.068 0 0

Sociology 20 0.017 22 0.024 20 0.048

Law 35 0.03 10 0.011 0 0

Economics 142 0.122 149 0.16 38 0.09




Information Systems

0 0 0 0 0 0

Health Care,


Medical

16 0.014 0 0 38 0.09

Education 5 0.004 0 0 0 0




Math & Statistics 40 0.034 6 0.006 69 0.164


Not indexed 11 0.009 36 0.039 19 0.045

Total 1168 1 932 1.001 420 0.999


Ratio 3.80 1.00 6.51 1.00 1.32 1.00


239

Table E-11. Business Management Journals--Incoming Ties 2010 (measuring citations of

other journals citing these journals)

ACAD MANAGE

REV

ACAD MANAGE

J

ADMIN SCI Q



Other than Business

Management


Political Science + 10 0.001 0 0 26 0.003

Interdisciplinary 0 0 8 0.001 5 0

Psychology 929 0.065 1282 0.083 547 0.054

Sociology 80 0.006 123 0.008 232 0.023

Law 34 0.002 20 0.001 41 0.004

Economics 96 0.007 100 0.006 98 0.01


Engineering 262 0.018 348 0.023 229 0.023


Information Systems

883 0.062 733 0.048 622 0.062


Health, and Medical

153 0.011 233 0.015 174 0.017

Education 45 0.003 79 0.005 66 0.007


Communication 71 0.005 84 0.005 63 0.006


Math & Statistics 13 0.001 9 0.001 0 0

All Others 45 0.003 37 0.002 43 0.004

Not indexed 736 0.052 663 0.043 448 0.044

Total 14231 0.999 15407 1 10075 1


240

Table E-12. Business Management Journals --Outgoing Ties 2010 (measuring citations of


ACAD MANAGE

REV

ACAD MANAGE J ADMIN SCI Q



Other than Business

Management


Political Science + 5 0.003 0 0 0 0


Psychology 419 0.243 515 0.145 28 0.051

Sociology 108 0.063 363 0.102 140 0.255

Law 6 0.003 17 0.005 14 0.026

Economics 14 0.008 138 0.039 6 0.011




Information Systems

0 0 0 0 0 0


Health, and Medical

0 0 5 0.001 7 0.013



Communication 0 0 17 0.005 0 0




Not indexed 12 0.007 133 0.037 10 0.018

Total 1722 0.999 3562 1 548 0.999


Ratio 8.26 1.00 4.33 1.00 18.39 1.00


241

Appendix F: Routine for Creating Ego Networks of Journals using Journal Citation

Reports, Excel, and UCINET

1. First, access Journal Citation Reports, from the Web of Science, and select

journal title by typing in the title of the journal.

2. Having selected journal title, and finding the journal profile page, download the

citing and the cited lists, from the “download” link, for each year.

3. Set up network spreadsheet in Excel, with the “cited” journal data (incoming with

journal as alter) in the top portion; and with “citing” journal data (outgoing with

journal as ego) in the bottom portion; save the spreadsheet. In Excel, in creating

this spreadsheet, this will be a network file with column A and column B.

Column A should be labeled as “from” with the “citing journals” listed (e.g.

JPART) in that column. Next, column B should be labeled as the “To” column.

In that column, copy the journals in the “cited journal” list in the column. That is,

the journals listed in the “citing journal” list of Journal Citation Reports, are put

in column A. The journals that are being cited (i.e. “nominated”) from the citing

(or ego) journal title are put in column B.

4. Select the “all years” column that will include all the years of the journals cited by

the citing journal.

5. Use the cut-off of “5,” to exclude those journals with less than 5 citations are not

included.

6. Always remove the asterisk symbols (*) around any source titles.

7. Always replace the dash (-) with an underscore (_) in any source titles.

242

8. Delete all references to “AD_MINIST” – an unindexed journal – since this code

causes a data error.

9. Make sure to delete one entry for ego (citing) so there is no duplication of self-

citations.

10. In UCINET, save network file as “edge list 1” format without headers

11. Ego network file has been created.

243

Appendix G: Routine for Creating Whole Networks of Journals using Journal

Citation Reports, Excel, and UCINET

1. To create a whole network, it is necessary to take the ego network file and match

just those items that are part of the bounded network.

2. First in Excel, create a matrix file, with the journal titles transposed along the side

and the top.

3. In UCINET, create the network file by loading in the network relational data, as

described in Appendix F.

4. In UCINET, save as an Edgelist 1, with the word “everything” in file name, such

as PA_Network_Everthing_2015.

5. In UCINET, save the transposed file as a matrix, identifying it with the word

“transposed” in the titles, such as PA_Network_2015_Transposed

6. In UCINET, go to Data: Match Datasets: Match Multiple Data Sets, and put in the

transposed file as the primary dataset and the network “everything” file as the

secondary dataset.

7. In UCINET, select the match datasets routine.

8. In UCINET, open up the appropriate generated UCINET data set, and save as a

Matrix file and name it as the network followed by the year, such as

PA_Network_2015.

9. This is the whole network data set for a journal for a specific year.

244

Appendix H: Routine for Updating Master File while Creating a new Network and

Attribute File with Excel and UCINET

1. Create a Masterfile in Excel with journal name in column A and classified

attribute code in column B. Master list with all codes is presented in Appendix D.

2. First, using the Web of Science, Journal Citation Reports database, as described

in Appendix F, download the Citing and Cited journal data for the specific year (I

am examining 2005, 2010, 2015).

3. Create two excel spreadsheets with both data, with one named “network” and the

other named “attributes to be filled.” These are the network file and the attribute

file.

4. Follow the instructions for creating a network file in Appendix F. Note that this

relational file needs to have attributes assigned to it.

5. Modify the separate excel file to assign matrix attributes.

a. For the attribute data, paste both the cited and citing journals.

b. Sort alphabetically and remove duplicates

c. Save file as “JournalName_Attributes_ToBeFilled_Year”

6. In Excel, go to the master file and copy in new attributes; sort them

alphabetically, and remove duplicates.

7. In Excel, look up remaining attributes characteristics and add them to the master

file in Excel. These attributes are based upon the coding and taxonomy in

Appendix A and Appendix B.

245

8. In UCINET, in the DL Editor, load the original attribute matrix (to be completed

or “filled”) from Excel.

a. Save file as “matrix” format with headers.

9. In UCINET, in the DL Editor, load the new master file from Excel.

a. Save file as “matrix” format with headers.

10. In UCINET, go to Data-Match Sets-Match Multiple Data Sets.

11. Then match the Primary (original attribute file) and Secondary Data Set (new

master list) to create a newly updated attribute file.

12. Save the excel file as the updated master list.

13. In the UCINET, in the Matrix Editor, open up the new updated attribute file and

save it as the new attribute file for that network for that journal title and year.

14. Copy the file from the Matrix Editor (with Attr 2 now in the file) and copy into

Excel.

15. In Excel, match the Attr 1 and Attr 2 file data together.

16. In UCINET, in the DL Editor, copy in the new data and save as the complete

attribute file.

17. A new network attribute file has been created while updating the new Masterfile

of attributes.

246

Appendix I: Routine for running analysis in UCINET for Ego Network Analysis of

Categorical Attributes

1. In UCINET, follow the following routine: Networks; Ego Networks; Ego Net

Composition; Categorical Attributes.

2. In the box, select the appropriate input network and attribute data set.

3. Run the calculations for both incoming ties and outgoing ties analyses.

247

Appendix J: Routine for copying, pasting, and formatting from Logs in UCINET into

Excel

1. In UCINET, run the analyses to produce the logs.

2. In the log file, obtain the ego data by selecting and copying the journal data and

all the data above the row.

3. Copy into Excel using Paste: Text Import Wizard.

4. In Excel, identify the data by journal name, year, and save the Excel file (labeled

as “scratch” for convenience).

5. Delete all the other journal data above the ego network data row; and the column

data that is not relevant for that journal; and match the rows and the columns.

6. Viewing the newly formatted row of data and attribute headers, copy, and then

transpose that data into new cells switching from a horizontal to a vertical view.

7. Copy as a new table into excel.

8. Create another new table with the attributes spelled out to match the numeric.

9. Note the IQV and Blau’s calculations.

248

Appendix K: Network measures for public administration journals

Table K-1. Public administration network 2005 with measures of out-degree; in-degree;

normalized in-out degree; Bonacich power; Beta normalized; JIF.

Title Outde

g

Indeg nOutde

g

nInde

g

Beta/Bonaci

ch

Beta

Normalized

JIF

ADMIN SOC 135 65 0.061 0.03 22368.641 0.672 0.7

ADMIN SOC

WORK

0 0 0 0 58.2 0.002 0.146

AM REV PUBLIC

ADM

140 34 0.064 0.015 9163.426 0.275 0.615

AUST J PUBL

ADMIN

45 9 0.02 0.004 132.632 0.004 0.338

CAN PUBLIC

ADMIN

21 0 0.01 0 30.78 0.001 0.067

CAN PUBLIC

POL

0 0 0 0 17.986 0.001 0.295

CLIM POLICY 0 0 0 0 49.926 0.001 1.176

CONTEMP

ECON POLICY

11 0 0.005 0 15.763 0 0.524

ENVIRON

PLANN C

45 0 0.02 0 61.044 0.002 0.462

GOVERNANCE 48 63 0.022 0.029 468.89 0.014 1.349

INT REV ADM

SCI

46 6 0.021 0.003 58.966 0.002 0.211

J EUR PUBLIC

POLICY

58 26 0.026 0.012 808.776 0.024 0.676

J POLICY ANAL

MANAG

12 97 0.005 0.044 11820.407 0.355 0.855

J PUBL ADM

RES THEOR

166 165 0.075 0.075 49924.91 1.499 1.451

J SOC POLICY 14 13 0.006 0.006 65.943 0.002 1.037

PHILOS PUBLIC

AFF

0 0 0 0 22.526 0.001 1.241

POLICY POLIT 48 35 0.022 0.016 274.612 0.008 0.82

POLICY SCI 22 19 0.01 0.009 305.561 0.009 0.529

POLICY STUD J 109 29 0.05 0.013 5039.021 0.151 0.588

PUBLIC ADMIN 72 166 0.033 0.075 6433.178 0.193 0.924

PUBLIC ADMIN

DEVELOP

6 0 0.003 0 33.215 0.001 0.528

PUBLIC ADMIN

REV

121 404 0.055 0.184 149099.844 4.476 1.099

249

PUBLIC MONEY

MANAGE

35 23 0.016 0.01 1413.121 0.042 0.719

Table K-2. .Public administration network 2010 with measures of out-degree; in-degree;

normalized in-out degree; Bonacich power; Beta normalized; JIF.

Title Outde

g

Indeg nOutde

g

nInde

g

Beta/Bonaci

ch

Beta

Normalized

JIF

ADMIN SOC 410 185 0.053 0.024 57908.395 0.856 0.944

ADMIN SOC

WORK

0 0 0 0 91.663 0.001 0.587

AM REV PUBLIC

ADM

356 173 0.046 0.022 37498.426 0.554 1

AMME IDARESI

DERG

6 0 0.001 0 24.857 0 0

AUST J PUBL

ADMIN

79 19 0.01 0.002 1494.661 0.022 0.778

CAN PUBLIC

ADMIN

41 12 0.005 0.002 261.026 0.004 0.434

CAN PUBLIC

POL

0 5 0 0.001 50.87 0.001 0.215

CLIM POLICY 0 0 0 0 55.031 0.001 1.63

CONTEMP ECON

POLICY

0 0 0 0 17.425 0 0.523

ENVIRON

PLANN C

121 6 0.015 0.001 726.009 0.011 1.126

GEST POLIT

PUBLICA

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GOVERNANCE 101 114 0.013 0.015 12947.152 0.191 1.774

INNOVAR_REV

CIENC AD

0 0 0 0 9.118 0 0.048

INT PUBLIC

MANAG J

261 94 0.033 0.012 22095.842 0.327 1.949

INT REV ADM

SCI

173 67 0.022 0.009 11837.792 0.175 0.848

J ACCOUNT

PUBLIC POL

0 0 0 0 81.549 0.001 0.754

J EUR PUBLIC

POLICY

28 126 0.004 0.016 12108.582 0.179 1.541

J EUR SOC

POLICY

53 55 0.007 0.007 574.502 0.008 1.673

J HOMEL SECUR

EMERG

18 0 0.002 0 16.376 0 0.411

J POLICY ANAL

MANAG

33 131 0.004 0.017 34177.52 0.505 2.246

J PUBL ADM

RES THEOR

456 662 0.058 0.085 186847.922 2.761 2.086

250

J SOC POLICY 32 78 0.004 0.01 2474.721 0.037 1.016

LOCAL GOV

STUD

0 34 0 0.004 3563.601 0.053 0.484

PHILOS PUBLIC

AFF

0 0 0 0 0 0 1.444

POLICY POLIT 0 69 0 0.009 5395.686 0.08 0.754

POLICY SCI 0 29 0 0.004 2847.439 0.042 1.514

POLICY STUD J 0 93 0 0.012 16727.328 0.247 1.17

PUBLIC ADMIN 396 344 0.051 0.044 47289.898 0.699 1.292

PUBLIC ADMIN

DEVELOP

67 27 0.009 0.003 1056.706 0.016 0.783

PUBLIC ADMIN

REV

559 1126 0.072 0.144 357641.594 5.285 1.141

PUBLIC MANAG

REV

328 199 0.042 0.025 26843.629 0.397 1.295

PUBLIC MONEY

MANAGE

37 99 0.005 0.013 10936.777 0.162 0.779

PUBLIC PERS

MANAGE

38 69 0.005 0.009 10681.441 0.158 0.2

REV CLAD

REFORMA DEM

13 0 0.002 0 8.093 0 0.065

REV POLICY

RES

93 5 0.012 0.001 2887.003 0.043 1.354

REV PUBLIC

PERS ADM

162 116 0.021 0.015 28100.725 0.415 0.891

SOC POLICY

ADMIN

80 36 0.01 0.005 456.301 0.007 0.855

TRANSYLV REV

ADM SCI

32 0 0.004 0 12.21 0 0.212

251

Table K-3. Public administration network 2015 with measures of out-degree; in-

degree; normalized in-out degree; Bonacich power; Beta normalized; JIF. Title Outde

g

Indeg nOutde

g

nInde

g

Beta/

Bonacich

Beta

Normalize

d

JIF

ADMIN SOC 315.00 349.00 0.02 0.02 75565.70 0.67 0.89

ADMIN SOC

WORK

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75

AM REV

PUBLIC ADM

559.00 382.00 0.04 0.03 90625.96 0.81 1.26

AMME IDARESI

DERG

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02

AUST J PUBL

ADMIN

107.00 123.00 0.01 0.01 3988.29 0.04 0.67

CAN PUBLIC

ADMIN

122.00 20.00 0.01 0.00 363.86 0.00 0.30

CAN PUBLIC

POL

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.02 0.00 0.48

CIV SZLE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.31 0.00 0.14

CLIM POLICY 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 161.69 0.00 1.98

CONTEMP

ECON POLICY

8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.84 0.00 0.60

ENVIRON

PLANN C

234.00 53.00 0.02 0.00 6948.55 0.06 1.66

GEST POLIT

PUBLICA

22.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.09 0.00 0.10

GOVERNANCE 102.00 293.00 0.01 0.02 26698.84 0.24 3.42

INT PUBLIC

MANAG J

272.00 261.00 0.02 0.02 55987.19 0.50 1.23

INT REV ADM

SCI

330.00 203.00 0.02 0.01 25484.86 0.23 0.72

J ACCOUNT

PUBLIC POL

0.00 11.00 0.00 0.00 102.91 0.00 1.32

J COMP POLICY

ANAL

123.00 19.00 0.01 0.00 794.24 0.01 0.64

J EUR PUBLIC

POLICY

103.00 195.00 0.01 0.01 12121.20 0.11 1.96

J EUR SOC

POLICY

41.00 94.00 0.00 0.01 414.43 0.00 1.43

J HOMEL

SECUR EMERG

72.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 66.28 0.00 0.47

J POLICY ANAL

MANAG

18.00 200.00 0.00 0.01 39772.40 0.35 2.79

J PUBL ADM

RES THEOR

669.00 1485.0

0

0.05 0.10 423279.6

6

3.77 3.89

252

J PUBLIC

POLICY

71.00 135.00 0.01 0.01 12352.54 0.11 1.00

J SOC POLICY 95.00 50.00 0.01 0.00 218.80 0.00 1.15

LEX LOCALIS 129.00 14.00 0.01 0.00 98.69 0.00 0.80

LOCAL GOV

STUD

185.00 99.00 0.01 0.01 13014.84 0.12 0.80

NONPROFIT

MANAG LEAD

49.00 13.00 0.00 0.00 2851.42 0.03 0.65

POLICY POLIT 186.00 79.00 0.01 0.01 7868.73 0.07 1.20

POLICY SCI 223.00 113.00 0.02 0.01 6932.98 0.06 1.64

POLICY SOC 177.00 21.00 0.01 0.00 180.85 0.00 0.94

POLICY STUD J 99.00 217.00 0.01 0.02 23547.25 0.21 1.77

POLICY

STUD_UK

48.00 29.00 0.00 0.00 864.00 0.01 0.87

PUBLIC ADMIN 536.00 760.00 0.04 0.05 114864.5

6

1.02 1.92

PUBLIC ADMIN

DEVELOP

139.00 38.00 0.01 0.00 2072.90 0.02 0.82

PUBLIC ADMIN

REV

769.00 1978.0

0

0.05 0.14 599836.1

9

5.35 2.64

PUBLIC MANAG

REV

797.00 379.00 0.06 0.03 55876.79 0.50 1.87

PUBLIC MONEY

MANAGE

223.00 155.00 0.02 0.01 18101.77 0.16 0.72

PUBLIC

PERFORM

MANAG

525.00 94.00 0.04 0.01 19241.67 0.17 0.91

PUBLIC PERS

MANAGE

308.00 48.00 0.02 0.00 9860.43 0.09 0.60

REGUL GOV 43.00 51.00 0.00 0.00 5914.26 0.05 2.72

REV CLAD

REFORMA DEM

12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.15 0.00 0.11

REV POLICY

RES

94.00 25.00 0.01 0.00 316.19 0.00 1.17

REV PUBLIC

PERS ADM

251.00 219.00 0.02 0.02 45736.43 0.41 1.22

SCI PUBL

POLICY

14.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 148.76 0.00 1.23

SOC POLICY

ADMIN

146.00 63.00 0.01 0.00 882.97 0.01 1.07

TRANSYLV REV

ADM SCI

85.00 14.00 0.01 0.00 439.20 0.00 0.27

253

Appendix L: Core-ness Measures of Journals in Public Administration Networks

Core-ness Measures of Journals in Public Administration Networks

2005 2010 2015

PUBLIC ADMIN REV 0.844 PUBLIC

ADMIN REV

0.788 PUBLIC

ADMIN REV

0.679

J PUBL ADM RES

THEOR

0.374 J PUBL ADM

RES THEOR

0.431 J PUBL ADM

RES THEOR

0.524

ADMIN SOC 0.258 ADMIN SOC 0.263 AM REV

PUBLIC ADM

0.24

AM REV PUBLIC

ADM

0.253 AM REV

PUBLIC ADM

0.212 PUBLIC

MANAG REV

0.231

POLICY STUD J 0.087 PUBLIC

ADMIN

0.171 PUBLIC

ADMIN

0.205

J POLICY ANAL

MANAG

0.061 PUBLIC

MANAG REV

0.116 PUBLIC

PERFORM

MANAG

0.175

PUBLIC ADMIN 0.052 INT PUBLIC

MANAG J

0.113 ADMIN SOC 0.148

INT REV ADM SCI 0.037 REV PUBLIC

PERS ADM

0.106 REV PUBLIC

PERS ADM

0.116

GOVERNANCE 0.025 INT REV ADM

SCI

0.063 INT PUBLIC

MANAG J

0.116

CAN PUBLIC ADMIN 0.021 J POLICY

ANAL MANAG

0.051 PUBLIC PERS

MANAGE

0.089

POLICY POLIT 0.012 GOVERNANCE 0.034 INT REV ADM

SCI

0.083

PUBLIC MONEY

MANAGE

0.011 REV POLICY

RES

0.026 PUBLIC

MONEY

MANAGE

0.068

ENVIRON PLANN C 0.011 PUBLIC

ADMIN

DEVELOP

0.026 POLICY STUD

J

0.043

PUBLIC ADMIN

DEVELOP

0.004 PUBLIC PERS

MANAGE

0.025 GOVERNANCE 0.041

POLICY SCI 0 PUBLIC

MONEY

MANAGE

0.024 LOCAL GOV

STUD

0.04

J SOC POLICY 0 POLICY STUD J 0.021 J POLICY

ANAL MANAG

0.039

CLIM POLICY 0 AUST J PUBL

ADMIN

0.018 POLICY POLIT 0.036

CAN PUBLIC POL 0 ENVIRON

PLANN C

0.014 POLICY SCI 0.029

J EUR PUBLIC

POLICY

0 J EUR PUBLIC

POLICY

0.014 AUST J PUBL

ADMIN

0.029

AUST J PUBL ADMIN 0 J HOMEL

SECUR EMERG

0.014 CAN PUBLIC

ADMIN

0.028

254

ADMIN SOC WORK 0 CAN PUBLIC

ADMIN

0.012 PUBLIC

ADMIN

DEVELOP

0.027

PHILOS PUBLIC AFF 0 TRANSYLV

REV ADM SCI

0.008 J HOMEL

SECUR

EMERG

0.027

CONTEMP ECON

POLICY

0 REV CLAD

REFORMA

DEM

0.006 ENVIRON

PLANN C

0.019

POLICY POLIT 0.003 LEX LOCALIS 0.018

PHILOS

PUBLIC AFF

0.003 J PUBLIC

POLICY

0.013

CONTEMP

ECON POLICY

0.002 J COMP

POLICY ANAL

0.012

J SOC POLICY 0.002 J EUR PUBLIC

POLICY

0.011

CAN PUBLIC

POL

0.001 TRANSYLV

REV ADM SCI

0.011

POLICY SCI 0.001 POLICY SOC 0.011

GEST POLIT

PUBLICA

0.001 SCI PUBL

POLICY

0.011

INNOVAR_REV

CIENC AD

0.001 POLICY

STUD_UK

0.01

LOCAL GOV

STUD

0.001 ADMIN SOC

WORK

0.009

SOC POLICY

ADMIN

0 CAN PUBLIC

POL

0.009

AMME

IDARESI DERG

0 J ACCOUNT

PUBLIC POL

0.008

ADMIN SOC

WORK

0 REGUL GOV 0.007

J ACCOUNT

PUBLIC POL

0 AMME

IDARESI

DERG

0.006

CLIM POLICY 0 J EUR SOC

POLICY

0.006

J EUR SOC

POLICY

0 REV POLICY

RES

0.006

J SOC POLICY 0.005

GEST POLIT

PUBLICA

0.004

SOC POLICY

ADMIN

0.004

CONTEMP

ECON POLICY

0.003

NONPROFIT

MANAG LEAD

0.002

REV CLAD

REFORMA

DEM

0.002

CLIM POLICY 0.001

CIV SZLE 0.001

255

Appendix M: Whole Network Matrix UCINET Displays of Public Administration

Citations

M1. UCINET Display of 2005

256


257


Vita

Glenn S. McGuigan, Ph.D.

EDUCATION

Doctorate of Philosophy, Public Administration, December, 2018 School of Public Affairs, The Pennsylvania State University, Middletown, PA Dissertation: Knowledge Dissemination in Public Administration: Measuring Academic Scholarship with Social Network Analyses of Scholarly Journal Citations in Public Administration and Related Fields

Master of Business Administration, December, 2005 School of Business Administration, Penn State Harrisburg—Capital College

Master of Library Science, December, 1996 School of Library and Information Science, University of Pittsburgh

Bachelor of Arts, February, 1994, Department of English, Minor in Italian language University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Coursework, Italian Language, Spring, 1990, School for Foreigners, Siena, Italy

EXPERIENCE

Library Director, 9/15—present

Business & Public Administration Reference Librarian, 9/00-4/16 Penn State Harrisburg, Middletown, PA. Tenured faculty member in the University Libraries at the rank of full Librarian.

Reference Librarian, 8/98-9/00 Penn State Abington, Abington, PA. Faculty member at the rank of Assistant Librarian.

Reference Librarian, 1/98-8/98 (Full-Time/Temporary) Jennie King Mellon Library, Chatham College, Pittsburgh, PA.

Reference Librarian, 1/97-12/97 (One-Year Appointment) Hunt Library, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

McGuigan, Glenn S. The Transformation of the U.S. Government Publishing Office: A Strategic Analysis. Library Philosophy and Practice. Paper 1466, Winter, 2016.

McGuigan, Glenn S. The NIH Public Access Policy and Federally Funded Research: An Analysis of Problem Recognition and Agenda Setting. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 41, Number 1, 54-60, 2015.

McGuigan, Glenn S. Hateful metrics and the Bitterest Pill of Scholarly Publishing. Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation, Volume 31, Number 3, 249-256, 2013. DOI: 10.1080/08109028.2014.891711 (Invited)

McGuigan, Glenn S. “Addressing Change in Academic Libraries: A Review of Classical Organizational Theory and Implications for Academic Libraries.” Library Philosophy and Practice, Paper 775, July, 2012.

McGuigan, Glenn S. “Crisis of Professionalism in Public Services: Addressing Challenges to Librarianship from a Public Administration Perspective.” Library Review, Volume 60, Number 7, p. 560-574, August, 2011.

McGuigan, Glenn S. & Russell, Robert D. “The Business of Academic Publishing: A Strategic Analysis of the Academic Journal Publishing Industry and Its Impact upon the Future of Scholarly Publishing.” E-JASL: The Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, Volume 9, Number 3, 2008.

McGuigan, Glenn S. “Publishing Perils in Academe: The Serials Crisis and the Economics of the Academic Journal Publishing Industry.” Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, Volume 10, Number 1, p. 13-26, 2004.

knowledge dissemination in public administration

Documents